All drugs should be legalized (or decriminalized)

ARGUMENTS: "however with the experiment and results that CO has offered us so far, many of those concerns have proven to be irrelevant."A weak analogy fallacy and a hasty generalization[1][2]. The comparison is poor and Colorado is not even an accurate example of the average American state in terms of marijuana users. When did Colorado legalize marijuana? It was 2012[3]. How is two years an accurate sample of the drug policies effects? Colorado is also an inaccurate example because the results of the policies can't be realized n such a short period of time. Was cocaine and heroin legalized as well? No, they were not legalized. Therefore, Colorado is not a substantial example for this debate in any form. [1]http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[2]http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[3]http://www.drugpolicy.org..."Let's also not pretend that making drugs illegal reduces the number of users. "It does, it is simply a matter of the execution of the drug laws and society's will to absolve itself of drugs."We all know a drug habit is addictive and costly."No, not all drug habits, this is simply not true. This is a sweeping generalization fallacy[4].[4]http://www.logicalfallacies.info..."Drug users are going to use drugs regardless of the law, and legalizing them can only help."No, it has to do with society's drive to stop drug abuse. In Singapore, the drug policies work. Why? The consequences of selling drugs is nothing short of the death penalty[1]. If someone has drugs sold in their house they are punished. Drug users are given two chances in a drug rehabilitation center before being sent to prison on their third strike[2]. Clearly, the drug laws work in Singapore, it is not up for debate when these are undeniable facts. If a society wants to deal with the problem of drugs, it can. If they will it, so shall it be.[5]http://goseasia.about.com...[6]http://www.theguardian.com..."Colorado has taken in about $23 million in recreational and medical marijuana sales in 2014. On a much larger scale, the revenue would obviously be considerably larger due to the population and the increased number of substances. "And let us look at this from a true economic standpoint. Let us look at two countries with clearly opposite drug policies, Singapore and Portugal. Portugal has 10.6 million people and Singapore has 5.3 million people[7][8]. Portugal has decriminalized all drugs and Singapore has some of the world's strictest drug laws[9][6]. Portugal has 252 USD Billion GDP. Singapore has 297.94 USD Billion GDP[11]. Who is more productive? Singapore or Portugal? That would be Singapore hands down with more GDP and about less than half the population of Portugal. [7]http://worldpopulationreview.com...[8]http://www.singstat.gov.sg...[9]http://www.spiegel.de...[10]http://www.tradingeconomics.com...[11]http://www.tradingeconomics.com..."The addictions are not up to the government to decide. "Yes, it is. It is the government's job to regulate commerce. Pharmacies would be the providers if the No, pharmacist would disregard their oath and still be able to practice pharmaceutical work. A pharmacist must follow their own code of ethics as well as the law. It is against their oath to give someone something that will only have harmful effects[12]. Selling all drugs would be against a pharmacist's oath. [12]http://pharmacy.rutgers.edu..."Why on Earth can the government decide how I harm my body? I fully believe in the ownership of self, and by restricting my habits and decisions my rights are violated. "This is too incredulous to believe my opponent would believe the statement he just wrote. Simply put, it is the government's business. I will have to explain how the economy functions and how the government reacts to it now in detail. It is the government's responsibility to regulate trade. Illegal drug transactions are a form of trade. When someone decides to purchase drugs, he/she has bought drugs from another person. Therefore, it is not only about your body. You are buying from someone who makes a profit.When someone chooses to do drugs and harms someone else, it is the government's business. That is why many states don't allow smoking in restaurants or in public buildings anymore because other people can die from second hand smoke. "Drugs are only dangerous when they are made dangerous."No, my opponent has clearly just disregarded the entire point of drug usage, legal and illegal. What does my opponent think the point of using drugs is? Drugs are used to alter the state of the human anatomy. Many people just happen to ignore the side effects of drugs as well. Many drugs have hazardous effects be it directly or a side effect. I will use legal drugs to show the hazardous effects. The influenza vaccine given every year, not so uncommonly causes people to contract influenza. Adderall which many college students to sports players use can cause high blood pressure and an extremely high heart rate. Many drugs are inherently dangerous."Propaganda is fully responsible for how drugs are viewed in our society, seen as next to the devil when the war on drugs was originally declared."Yes, I agree, propaganda is why most in society who use illegal drugs tend to use it for recreational purposes. Drugs are not made for recreational purposes."When discussing the health effects of drug use, I would again like to emphasize individual rights. If health effects are the main and only relevant arguments nowadays, then anything and everything that damages health should be illegal."Another sweeping generalization fallacy[4]. My opponent does not realize that in order for something to become illegal, they had to previously had to be legal. Cocaine and heroin were made illegal due to the mass amount of deaths surrounding them initially. If a drug has been reported to kill so many people, they will be made illegal. Drugs are meant for medical purposes not recreational purposes. If the harms outweigh the benefits, a drug more than likely will be made illegal. "The health effects are harmful overall, though, and I will agree that drug addictions are harmful to the health of the individual. However, the government should not be able to dictate my health. "The government should be able to dictate your health because the government must regulate the health industry. Every new drug that is developed must be approved by the FDA[13]. For example, a drug's intent may be to slow one's heart rate while in combat sports or in a war but may have the side effect of stopping one's heart when they go to sleep. This drug would not be approved by the FDA. Or another example would be how a drug a few years ago was meant to maintain a male erection but had a side effect of causing most of the users to urinate blood during the experiments. This drug was not approved by the FDA thankfully.[13]http://www.fda.gov..."Speaking from a Darwinist outlook, the deaths that result from drug use can be justified. Those who do not survive are not fit to survive."That sounds very malevolent of my opponent to make the above statement. I will take the side that I want all people to succeed in a sane pursuit of happiness and to live healthy lives with their loved ones. "Dealing with drug use is much more difficult than mandatory counseling or rehab. If someone does not want help, forced rehab will do absolutely nothing. To get help, the user has to want help. If rehab is the punishment, sobriety can be seen as something undesirable. Problems can only be dealt with if the person is willing."Pure opinion and speculation on the part of my opponent which has been to be debunked far too many times[6].Coercion has and will always work when one actually puts effort in utilizing coercion. Do you like paying taxes? I am more than sure most people pay taxes even if they don't like paying taxes.