All drugs of all classifications should be legal.

For the same reason states legislate and enforce seatbelt wearing in cars for personal safety, so too do they enforce control over drug types. My opponent believes that there is no possible reason to illegalise drugs; however the state/government has a duty of care to its citizens, and as such acts in a manner befitting that responsibility. To make my point I will use one drug as an example of why the state exerts such control, that of Methamphetamine (MA). Unlike the majority of drug types where damage before the terminal stage can be repaired or reversed, MA has an unfortunate ability to cause irreversible damage to large sections of the brain (Homer, et al., 2008). Methamphetamine (MA) is a highly addictive stimulant that has significant effects on the CNS. Recently, there has been a marked increase in the use and abuse of MA. The 2003 MA/amphetamine treatment admission rate in the United States was 56 admissions per 100,000 population (ages 12 or older), an increase of over 400% from the 1993 rate of 13 admissions per 100,000 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2006). MA is a cationic lipophilic molecule that has striking effects on the sympathetic nervous system and central nervous system (CNS; Davidson, Gow, Lee, & Ellinwood, 2001). MA is more potent than its parent compound amphetamine because its lipophilic nature allows superior penetration of the CNS (Meredith, Jaffe, Ang-Lee, & Saxon, 2005). Similar to amphetamine, MA stimulates the discharge of newly synthesized catecholamines in the CNS and partially blocks the presynaptic reuptake of these neurotransmitters (Cho & Melega, 2002). Animal studies have shown that amphetamines, together with MA, target the dopamine transporter, which regulates dopaminergic transmission by facilitating dopamine reuptake (Davidson et al., 2001). Amphetamines have been shown to inhibit the reuptake of dopamine by reversing the direction of the dopamine transporter, leading to an increased dopamine release (Giros, Jaber, Jones, Wightman, & Caron, 1996). Data from neuroimaging studies, neuropsychological testing, and psychiatric evaluation indicate that heavy use of MA contributes to a variety of psychiatric pathologies, including psychosis (Batki & Harris, 2004), mood disturbance (London et al., 2004), suicidal ideations (Zweben et al., 2004), anxiety (Zweben et al., 2004), hostility (Zweben et al., 2004), psychomotor dysfunction (Caligiuri & Buitenhuys, 2005), deficits in cognitive skills (Gonzalez et al., 2004), and, in extreme cases, paranoia, hallucinations, and delusion (Logan, 2002). There is compelling evidence that the negative consequences of MA use are due, at least in part, to damage to the brain caused by the neurotoxicity of MA. In making decisions, MA abusers will tend to choose an immediate reward at the expense of severe negative consequences in the future (Verdejo-Garcia, Perez-Garcia, & Bechara, 2006). Paulus et al. (2005) found that these decision-making deficits are predictive of subsequent relapse in recovering MA addicts. Imaging studies have indicated that the impaired decision making of MA users is associated with dysfunction in the orbitofrontal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, and parietal cortex (Paulus et al., 2003). Functional deficits have also been found in the anterior cingulum, which suggests that attention deficits may contribute to impaired decision making (Nordahl et al., 2002). By far the most common psychiatric symptom associated with chronic MA use is depression. In a study with one of the largest samples of MA users (N _ 1,016), Zweben et al. (2004) examined co-occurring psychiatric symptoms and found particularly high scores on depression scales for MA users. Specifically, 68% of the women and 50% of the men reported feeling depressed at some point in their lives, and 28% of the women and 13% of the men reported at least one suicide attempt. "1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay." Yes there may be an increase in state revenue, but that revenue now goes into the implementation, control, checks and balances, treatment, hospitalisation, licensing etc. You cannot guarantee any long term profit. "2.Many of them are harmless in the short term." Actually no, drugs are not. You are confusing harmless with repairable harm, drugs cause damage, they change physiological systems. The body then tries to adapt and repair those changes. "3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users." Until you can back that statement up with current spending and projected spending, it is not debateable. It is just as valid for me to say, no you are wrong, and leave it at that. "4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate." Breaking news, chocolate overdoses are on the rise.....oh wait, NO they are not. Drugs are not only psychologically addictive. Addiction is a factor of 3 main components, • Social • Drug characteristics • Drug user characteristics Social is the environment that the user normally partakes in, it influences the person physiological responses when in that environment including craving and tolerance (conditioning). "5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it)" Your father is hardly the proto type of drug consensus. Additionally drug myths are scarcely a reason to legalise. How exactly would that change the general rhetoric of a population? Even if it did, again, why is that a reason to legalise when education programs would be cheaper, safer and more efficient? Furthermore, marijuana does not cure cancer, at all. It is prescribed, in the case of cancer (chemotherapy) patients to 1. Increase appetite. 2. Decrease pain symptoms. "6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power." Actually no you won't. Drug cartels still need to produce and operate illegally on the basis of the global position of drugs and use. Secondly, whatever price the government sets, there will be a market for a cheaper price, a competitive market. Competition is what has resulted in these cartels related deaths to begin with. As all of your points are now mute to a favourable conclusion for your pro-drug argument, I relieve the debate to you for a proper and logical clarification for your position.