Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal.

1. Potential Harms and Essential Liberties a. Pro argues that I am arguing for criminalization based on potential harms, but as I've explained, many of these are guaranteed harms; they may not be easily observable, immediately tangible harms, but the gradualness of many harms does not make them any less existent; for example, with marijuana, it has been proven that the drug is an immunosuppressant, which incontestably weakens the body, which is counterproductive to the ‘medical' uses of the drug. b. While rhetorically pleasing, my opponent fails to prove exactly how the ‘right to self-harm' is an "essential liberty"; as I pointed out in Round 2, the government's obligation to preserve life, and the quality thereof, cannot be obstructed by the desire for personal enjoyment, especially since, if one's life is put at risk, the future satisfaction of the desire for enjoyment is also put at risk. 2. The Purpose of Government a. Agreed, one of the government's main duties is to protect rights; however, at the point where the right to personal enjoyment begins to endanger the right to life, the government is clearly obligated to protect the latter, so that the possibility of exercising the former may also be protected. b. Even assuming that people are their own ‘property', my opponent has dropped the argument on responsible decision-making. As I've argued, many users continue to consume these substances despite their knowledge that doing so is self-harm, and that doing so is blatantly against the law (as far as pot and ecstasy, anyhow); these both demonstrate that users cannot make responsible decisions, and thus they cannot be allowed access to this nonessential freedom because they have not shown the capacity to exercise it responsibly. 3. Manipulated Sources a. Pro asserts that I am making ‘ridiculous' claims about the link between pot and schizophrenia; however, after searching through my opponent's page of links: "Yale University researchers have shown that active ingredient in marijuana can cause transient schizophrenia-like symptoms ranging from suspiciousness and delusions to impairments in memory and attention in some patients. " [. http://mentalhealth.about.com...] Furthermore, "One 2005 study, for example, found similarities between the brains of adolescents who smoked marijuana regularly and adolescents with schizophrenia. " [. http://mentalhealth.about.com...] Clearly, there are links between smoking marijuana, and the causation of schizophrenic symptoms, even if the disorder itself is not present; from Pro's own sources, we can see that the correlation (and some causation) is quite real. b. Granted, the recommendation was for ecstasy to be a Class B drug, however, Pro fails to provide the reason given: "The challenge is to ensure that any debate over ecstasy's classification is not perceived - or indeed misrepresented - as indicating that the drug is in any way 'safe'. It is precisely because ecstasy is a harmful drug that it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act but evidence shows that its social and health harms are more consistent with drugs controlled under Class B, such as amphetamines. " [. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...] Pro seems to have omitted the fact that ecstasy is recommended as a Class B drug BECAUSE it is harmful. There is no misrepresentation on my part. c. Though, inconclusive on the permanence of brain damage, Lead researcher Maartje de Win did affirm that "we cannot conclude that ecstasy, even in small doses, is safe for the brain" [. http://news.bbc.co.uk...]. 4. Back to Government a. Pro never refutes that there ought to be mutual respect between government and its people; if the government fears the people, or vice versa, there will always be tyranny on the side of the group imposing fear; and, tyranny by a majority is no better than tyranny by government. Keep in mind that we are discussing how things OUGHT to be, and the relationship between government and citizens OUGHT to be one of mutual respect, not one of master (the people) and servant (the government); ergo, the people's desires shouldn't always take top priority. b. Whether or not people have always liked experimenting with the drugs is irrelevant; refer back to Round 2, when I clearly called Pro on making a simultaneous ad populum/appeal to tradition. She simply extends the ad populum by saying that criminalization of these substances would "NEVER be acceptable"; and that 45 million people are smokers; I don't see why the government ought to be forced to support people's addictions to smoking cigarettes, especially when greedy companies are allowed to profit by selling knowingly harmful products; Pro certainly hasn't convinced me. c. I may have mis-worded my argument, I apologize; I was arguing that Pro has given no legitimate reason to take the status quo for tobacco and to impose it on ecstasy and marijuana; that is, she hasn't proved that legal status quo to be a good thing. Further, she asserts again that, because we "can" legalize these substances in the same way that we legalize alcohol, we therefore SHOULD legalize these substances in that way; however, Pro failed to address my argument that, the resolution doesn't ask what we have the capability to do, but rather what should be done. Somehow, I have about 3,000 characters left; luckily, there are some things I want to go over. 5. Arguments Dropped by Pro a. Her numerous points on the Legal and Financial Benefits (5 and 6 on her list from Round 2). b. Tobacco smoke as a medical tool to decrease blood clots. c. *The argument on responsibility of drug consumers. * d. The reality of the so-called ‘medical benefits' of marijuana (refer to my Round 3 post, Point 3a). e. *My Round 3 post, Point 3c, discussing how she tries to pin me for negating on ‘potential harms', when the best she can come up with are ‘potential medical benefits'. * f. The guaranteed harms of tobacco, both in cigarettes and in chewing tobacco. g. I've covered many other drops in my previous refutations, such as her dropping of the ad populum/appeal to tradition fallacies, for example. h. Clearly, though there are some potential (situation-specific) harms, many of these harms are entirely guaranteed; my opponent fails to attack the idea presented that, though harms may not be instantly recognizable, the harms are still very real. Thus, to preserve future liberty, the right to life, and the quality thereof, must be protected first; though Ben Franklin asserts that trading ‘essential liberty' for ‘temporary safety' is despicable, my opponent has failed to prove that the right to take harmful drugs is an ‘essential liberty', further failing to prove how preventing these harms is ‘temporary safety', beyond the obvious fact that one's life is only temporary. So, while there may be ‘indisputable benefits' for each substance, the costs and harms clearly outweigh the minute benefits. Though I have about 1,000 characters left, I have little else that needs to be addressed. ; with all the arguments that have been misrepresented or dropped by Pro, the victor today is clear; in the interests of fairness, please do not allow my opponent to try and cover any of these drops in her final round, and further disallow her from presenting any new arguments or evidence, as it simply would not be fair to me to do so, seeing as I would be helpless to respond. This has been a very enriching debate, and I would have the voters refer back to my original post to determine the allocation of points between debaters.