The USFG should legalize all drugs

What we have learned: An Overview of this debate “Our experience is the source of all knowledge.” The above is a quote from pro. The question becomes, what is our experience with legalizing drugs. I demonstrated last round that our experience legalizing harmful substances has led to significant harm. The result of legal alcohol: “excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion, or $1.90 a drink.” (1) Pro states that “Con says legalizing drugs will increase the consumption of drugs. But that's just Con's assertion.” The above is clear evidence. The prohibition may not have been an overwhelming success. However, it is clear that Alcohol does far more damage to our society today, then when it was prohibited. This is evident as “1 in 10 deaths among working age adults” is linked to alcohol. Pro tries to straw man my position stating “I mean that Con is so adamant about prohibiting anything harmful that he even recommend prohibiting tobacco and alcohol...” I never made such a recommendation. What I did was demonstrate that the experience of legalizing harmful substances increases consumption and harm. Alcohol alone proves this. This clearly negates pro’s claim that “Con’s assertion is 100% speculation. It's conjecture, approaching nothing close to a clear probability.” This is an amusing quote as I have clearly backed up my assertion. Pro on the other hand through pure speculation claims that legalizing drugs does not increase consumption. It is historically factual and logically intuitive that if a substance is made legal, and available that consumption increases. We can clearly conclude that legalization of all drugs would increase consumption. The Harm Principle Pro asserts that “The harm principle is a limiting principle. It only says what the government cannot do. It says nothing about what the government must do or should do.” This is a grave misunderstanding on pro’s part and is why he loses this debate. Recall in his opening argument when he quoted Mill. “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This clearly states that based on the harm principle there is a time when power can be rightfully exercised over a member of civilized community against his will. As clearly stated it is to prevent harm to others. This is Pro’s own standard. To follow this standard and test it against the resolution we must ask, does increased consumption of drugs increase harm to others. Consider all of the effects I have listed from drugs, which are several. It is not a stretch to assume that someone who’s mood is altered, having hallucinations, is paranoid, prone to erratic and violent behavior, and/or having suicidal thoughts poses a threat to themselves and others. I even cited the following… “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Household Survey on Drug Abuse asks individuals living in households about their dug and alcohol use and their involvement in acts that could get them in trouble with the police... those who use cannabis or cocaine were much more likely to commit crimes of all types than those who did not use these substances. Of those reporting use... during 1991, 26.1% also report that they committed violent crimes during the year."(2) Clearly drugs are not confined to self-harm. Thus we can conclude that applying the harm principle would justify the illegality of some drugs. The Burden of Proof: Finally I ask all reading to consider the burden of proof required in this debate. Pro argued for the legalization of all drugs. The burden rests entirely on him to affirm his position. In this debate pro has attempted to shift his burden to me stating “Con still refuses to give any specifics about what’s he’s advocating. So hold him to the status quo.” My role in this debate is to demonstrate that pro has not met his burden. I have demonstrated clearly that legalizing drugs will Increase consumption. This will in turn increase the harm posed by drugs. When you then apply the Harm principle it becomes clear that use of some drugs invariably leads to a violation of this principle. In conclusion: Pro made three contentions two contentions are soundly negated. Drugs being awesome hardly links to legalization and is merely a statement of opinion and the harm principle would support the illegality of some drugs. To vote pro is to accept his cost benefit analysis which is almost entirely based on money. That is to say, to vote pro is to advocate corporations exploiting and profiting off of human suffering and addiction. Profits might be made, jobs might be created, but society pays the ultimate price in life’s lost. By legalizing all drugs based on pro’s arguments is to haveour society monetized a human life with the blessing of government. I ask you which weighs more, life, or money… Pro’s cost benefit analysis is clearly wrong. We must not legalize all drugs P1: The U.S. government ought to protect citizens from harm. P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Drugs C: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs. How is that done? The Government protects citizens through the rule of law. We can therefore conclude that “The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from drugs.” The resolution is soundly negated. Vote Con. Sources:(1) http://www.cdc.gov...(2) http://www.bjs.gov...