Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

During this debate so far, I have mostly stuck to answering my opponent's claims. During this round, I shall provide both hard facts and an ethical analysis on why drugs should be legalized. Firstly, however, I shall take a brief look at some of pro's claims and rebut them. My source was intended to ensure that the general principle "association doesn't imply causation" was universally agreed upon, though it did not specifically deal with drugs. This principle is simple and applies to most data gathered in observational studies, as opposed to experiments. Whilst it is definitively possible to test for medical effects of drugs on people, that was not the point I was trying to make when I stated "because drugs are illegal, it is impossible to obtain truly accurate data on their effects." I am referring to economic, criminal, and demographic data. It isn't possible to accurately determine the effect drugs have on income or productivity unless it is possible to get a representative sample, an important concept in statistics. If the only drug users we can study are those in jail, we are sure to find a high correlation between drugs and crime, but this is only because it is impossible to find a sample of drug users not imprisoned because they are illegal. Therefore, we can expect drug data to be skewed towards low income earners, minorities, and criminals, because these populations are disproportionately observed in any study involving drugs. Next, con makes what Bill Nye would call "a remarkable claim." He states this debate is not about current drug laws. This is ridiculous! The stated resolution of the debate is "Current (sic) illegal drugs (besides marihuana (sic)) should not be legalized." This debate is about whether we should repeal the laws that make drugs illegal. That's what legalize means. [1] Pro is defending the current state of illegality of drugs, whilst I am attacking it. Pro failed to answer my point about morality. My point was "It is not morally right to ban something because it is associated with real crime." I backed this up with logical examples. Pro has dropped this argument. Now, let's move on to some serious stuff. The war on drugs costs America $15 Billion annually. [2] Making drugs legal would eliminate this drain on resources and could potentially raise billions of dollars in revenue from taxes. Also, decriminalizing drugs would break the link between drugs and gang violence, cartels, and unsafe practices. [3] By banning drugs, the government has created a black market that is not subject to the law, creating the link between drugs and violence. Because the demand for drugs is inelastic with respect to price, drug dealing has become a very profitable business. If we break this chain, drug companies will offer cheap drugs and will be held accountable to the law. Organized crime related to drugs would lose its source of profit. Another important benefit of legalizing drugs would be the lowered incarceration rate. Right now, there are over 300,000 people in jail because of drug possession, trafficking, or other nonviolent drug crimes. [4] These people were hurting no one and exercising their own rights to put into their bodies whatever they like, yet were still imprisoned. It is monstrously immoral to try to exercise control over a decision that doesn't harm you. Nobody has a right to limit the liberties of anybody else, so long as that person respects others' rights equally. This brings us to our final point. There is no clause in the Constitution allowing the federal government to outlaw drugs. In fact, because the Prohibition has been repealed, there is a strong Constitutional argument against the War on Drugs. The Constitution specifically outlines what Congress can do, and nowhere is there any hint of banning drugs. Therefore, the War on Drugs is unconstitutional. Sources 1- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2- http://www.drugsense.org... 3- http://www.forbes.com... 4- http://www.drugwarfacts.org...