Resolved: the United States Government's War on Drugs should be continued in it's entirety

Thank you for the response. And thank you for this debate! 1.Constitutionality Whether Gonzales v Raich was 6-3 decision or a 9-0 decision is quite irrelevant. By the majority decision of the entity which interprets the constitution, the drug war is completely constitutional or legal. This is how it was interpreted by the majority of the court. Furthermore, I see no reference in my opponent's case to the dissenting opinion of the court, therefore, the expert opinion of Justice Scalia must be held over my opponent's own analysis. Congress has complete authority, under the constitution, to wage a drug war. 2.Unhealthy Why can't an inanimate object be an enemy? People have the right to perform an action as long as it does not pose a threat to society as a whole (conceded). Drugs pose a threat, namely a long-term threat, to society as a whole (United Nations). I mean if my opponent believes drugs do not pose a threat, they should have been able to back up their opinion. I also would like to point out that the source I referenced clearly was talking about illicit drugs. My opponent is taking the passage I provided out of context to suit their own needs. The way I referenced the passage was clearly in context. Even so, simply stating that because X has not caused harm yet, means that X will never cause harm when all the evidence points to the conclusion that X will cause harm in the future, does not give a warrant for allowing X (X being a placeholder for illegal drugs.) Furthermore, it is impossible to see the effects of X being legalized because…they are not legalized, why take the risk when all of the evidence provided here points towards a society becoming destabilized as a result? As for nicotine being more addictive, my opponent cites an article which merely says more people are being addicted to nicotine, no where does it say nicotine is more addictive. Therefore, my point stands. And who says I'm not pushing for a renewed Prohibition? 3.Decreased Use I provided more data points, the Bill Clinton presidency, for example (2 more data points in the middle of the trend). This was a major shift away from pre-Clinton era drug policy, drug use went up. But, even so, the overall trend is down. No matter which way you put it, from 1979 to today, less people are using drugs today then in 1979 (percentage wise). (1) As for prohibition, here my opponent is expecting us to believe that someone who is slowly dying of a disease would not seek any medical attention. Even someone today, who ODs on a drug would seek medical attention. Then my opponent provides a source with no analysis of that source. Now as for US and Portugal cultural differences, first, the Portuguese economy is probably worse than the United States economy right now. Second, technological use is slow going, the technology level between US and Portugal is huge (around 30 or so years ago Portugal was a dictatorship). Third, Portugal was a dictatorship 30 or so years ago (slows progression some). Fourth, it is mostly Catholic. Fifth, much, much higher taxes. (2, 3) You cannot use Portugal as a valid basis for what would happen in the United States. Under that logic, Portugal should not of decriminalized because of Switzerland's, Britain, Sweden and the Netherland's failure's with experimenting with drug legalization (4). We cannot use other countries as a valid basis of what would happen in the United States as the effects are widespread even just across Europe. 4.Crime I clearly stated that drug cartels would still exist. Just aimed towards different people. My opponent has conceded all the evidence that 1) when marijuana was decriminalized in the United States DUIs increase and 2) marijuana increases risks of crashes. Basically, in other words, my opponent has conceded this point. The roads being much more dangerous affects more people than drug cartels. Considering we have seen no third variable here, correlation does equal causation until provided another variable. The report said both alcohol and drugs cause crime, also, as the report said, simply using the substance increases crime. More users, more crime. People do commit crimes to get their beer, people STEAL it all the time. There's even a police brochure about it (5). My opponent concedes all of my economic points, and as I pointed out above (Social Contract) a person has the obligation to give up some freedoms they have for the greater good. If they refuse to give up their freedoms then the government has the responsibility to do so. The overall economy is the greater good. As for this next point, people have the right to do what they want as long as it does not interfere with overall society (in a negative way). This quite obviously does, with medical, lost productivity, etc. The government has the right to interfere because it has the responsibility to enforce the social contract, seeing how drug users are not doing it themselves. Even if we include alcohol, how does this negate my point? Domestic abuse is linked to drugs, that's enough to not legalize. 5.Treaties My opponent has proven no such thing. 6.Prison populations Most people are still in prison not just for drug possession but other crimes. Considering my opponent has never provided anything else we should use, the point still stands, more crime leads to higher prison population. If crime increases because of drugs, then, prison populations rise. 7.Trafficking Actually, it could still be profitable. If the excluded group is anyone 21 and under, you still have the majority of people needing to go through back channels. 18 and under almost the same story. The excluded groups. 1. http://www.policyalmanac.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://movingtoportugal.org... 4. http://www.sarnia.com... 5. http://www.mesaaz.gov...