Drug Legalization

RE-CAPBoth decriminalization and legalization remove criminal penalties from those who make, buy and sell drugs. However legalization permits an authorized framework that enables the government to tax, regulate, and otherwise place limitations on the sale of drugs. That's the difference. Thett is advocating for no serious penalties for drug use, along with no oversight (or legal liability) in place at all. Regulation is specifically what manages the supply of drugs and subsequently the cost. I've proven legalized drugs are more expensive than black market drugs. The cost of black market drugs keeps decreasing, and people turn to those drugs because they don't have access to and/or can't afford the legal ones. Thett has failed to explain how decriminalization is preferable. His only argument is that legalization means total access to drugs. I've proven people wouldn't be able to buy drugs under legalization any easier than they do under criminalization or decriminalization. * * * Extend all evidence on alcohol as dangerous and likely to promote aggression. Repeatedly calling my claim "absurd" is not a legitimate rebuttal. I've provided numerous arguments with sourced citations. In response, Con never denied the dangers of alcohol, instead asking a rhetorical question about which drug the judges would prefer their loved ones try. The audience's answer proves nothing - nor addresses my contentions - so this premise will be awarded to Pro. The point here is that government can regulate dangerous drugs. Thett's comment that "Big pharma is not going to open itself up...selling recreational drugs" has no merit, especially when I've proven that it's very profitable which drives Big Pharma.More importantly, the resolution says nothing about recreational drugs. Thett repeatedly misrepresents my burden through misdirection. He does this again in the last round ("why should chemo drugs be sold to non cancer patients") when I've explained the resolution says nothing about over-the-counter legalization, nor drugs for recreation.My argument for bodily autonomy does NOT contradict this. I explained that without legalization, people do not have the option (autonomy) of choosing between more options for medicinal use. For example MDMA combats PTSD, heroin is a pain killer, LSD thwarts alcoholism, cocaine stops bleeding, etc. [1]. Thett dropped this medicinal argument. He knows the government already markets dangerous drugs, and this fact dismantles his case. Ritalin, Adderall, Xanax, Valium, Fentanyl, Morphine, Percocet, Nicotine, Oxycodone and OxyContin are just some examples of highly addictive and dangerous drugs (in addition to alcohol) that the government regulates, making his claim that the government couldn't do that or wouldn't do that completely false. OxyContin is literally interchangeable with heroin, along with many other legal albeit potentially harmful opioids. In a fallacious appeal to emotion, Thett writes "Without drug laws there's no pretense to arrest violent gang members before their turf wars mow down innocent civilians." Extend my argument that people should be arrested for violence. Extend my argument that legalization would significantly inhibit the illegal drug trade (and subsequent gang violence) including turf wars. Thett has not proven or even argued that decriminalization would address this black market violence in any way whatsoever. Legalization would curb it the way it did when ending Prohibition [2]. Con mentions how drug use correlates to crime. He presents a source confirming what I said about the dangers of alcohol. But sure, some people may become aggressive on drugs. The same thing goes for alcohol which is legal with safeguards. Extend my arguments about it being perfectly legitimate to put safeguards in place, and to punish drug users that put people at risk.Thett fallaciously misrepresents my argument, saying that I only want to punish drug users AFTER they've hurt someone. I've repeatedly argued for penalizing drug users who put others at risk with public inebriation (or things like DWI) so that's unabashedly false. I've also advocated for regulation, meaning people who buy, sell or use drugs outside of government regulated parameters would be saddled with criminal penalties. Thett points out the benefits of forced rehabilitation, when I've already said I was okay with similar penalties if drug users put others at risk. Con's case has escalated from manipulative rhetoric to blatant lies. Saying that I conceded the economic argument is completely dishonest. I explained the price of drugs would only decrease upon legalization IF the supply of drugs drastically increased. Then, I explained that drugs are already in supply while criminalized, and that legalization controls how much manufacturers produce in order to limit the supply. I explained further: Under decriminalization, there are no government restrictions or regulations on production processes, and because of this costs and prices fall as drugs reach the market sooner. Thus I did NOT ignore his supply/demand argument... I defeated it.So Con spent the last round repeating that legalization = higher rates of drug abuse. He dropped my analysis on how regulations limit supply. He completely dropped my point about employer drug testing as an (already) effective deterrent. And he ignores that more drug use is not necessarily as problematic as he implies, since we can minimize society's burden through new policy, and keep it criminal for people to use drugs in public. All of these points must be awarded to me.These contentions address Thett's point about Prohibition decreasing alcoholism. It similarly makes his point on opium use in China null -- which I wish I had the space to respond on (his critique of the Harvard paper is completely wrong) but I don't, though it's irrelevant. China never regulated the supply of opium, so it's not an analogous example. Meanwhile, people turn to the black market specifically BECAUSE legalization controls the supply (and thus cost and availability) of drugs [3]. Thett negates his own argument by noting alcohol consumption went down upon taxation - which proves my point - and ignores the benefits of collecting revenue for the State. Further, Con acknowledges that regulation promotes safer consumption. His point that you can't have "safe" heroin is misguided (it's prescribed as a medicinal opioid in the form of Oxycontin, Benzodiazepines, etc...) but null since this is not an argument in favor of decriminalization. Legalization will let you know the official contents of a substance; decriminalization does not. Thus legalization will save lives. My opponent continues relying on manipulative rhetoric by mocking the idea of regulation as impossible. Yet U-47700 is an opioid that's legal despite being more toxic than heroin. His condescending argument that it "cannot be done" is 100% wrong. It can be done. It is being done.Furthermore, Con's ignored everything I've said about tort law. Negligence and liability terms would compel manufacturers to abide by standards that promote safety. Again it's too late for him to respond to these very important arguments, but they address many of his concerns. Guns are literally designed to KILL, yet we have legal provisions to minimize the potential for harm while recognizing people's rights... and Con dropped all arguments on rights.Extend my points (and examples such as the Harley case) on bodily autonomy and the violation of our 4th amendment rights, our Due Process rights, and every other legal contention that Con has dropped and now lost. Thett says I've exaggerated how easy it is to get drugs. This is more rhetoric with no substance; he ignores the quotes and numerous links I provided which detail how easy it is and the profitability of this trade -- but then declares that it's not easy with no explanation at all, while the numbers prove otherwise.He says "Danielle argues that due to regulation, the price of drugs will actually go up after legalization. This is absurd." He fails to address my explanation on the limited supply of drugs per regulation, relying again on the repetitious insult while not disproving the argument. Indeed legalized drugs are more expensive for aforementioned reasons. People turn to street drugs specifically because regulated drugs are more expensive and harder to obtain. Here are more sources to back up this claim I've already proven [4, 5, 6, 7]. Heroin is cheaper than beer and cigarettes. This is not absurd. This is real life. Thett argues people can buy anything un-taxed on a black market, but his proposal of decriminalization does not change that in any way whatsoever and a black market would still exist, while none of the benefits of legalization over decriminalization would.CONCLUSION Thett hasn't proven decriminalization makes drugs more expensive or harder to get.I've proven that legalization is preferable because 1) it makes drugs more expensive and harder to get, 2) it regulates the product for safer consumption, 3) it permits the government to monitor manufacturers and hold them accountable under tort law, 4) it permits the government to collect a ton of revenue,5) it allows for the penalties and deterrents of harmful activity, while 6) still protecting people's autonomous rights, 7) deterring black market violence, and8) affording scientists the opportunity to research/present more drugs for medicinal use. Thett said he would do 2 things in this debate: show that the horrific blowback from the Drug War could be resolved, and that legalization was not a "serious" solution. He has failed on both accounts. I proved that legalization is entirely possible (and already exists) so it is in fact a workable proposal. Meanwhile, Thett did not remotely address the blowback of the Drug War that I mentioned in round 2. He's dropped (and therefore lost) the vast majority of arguments. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...