Recreational Marijuana Legalization

OK, so this is our present position: pro concedes that cannabis is dangerous but believes education will solve the problem. Pro also concedes that cannabis legalization hasn't worked so well in the past, but he thinks the law enforcement cost would be reduced. Pro's major two ways in which he believes he has met his burden of proof is in his analysis that the harm does not correspond to the punishment, and in his resolute belief in personal liberty. In this final round, I will answer all of pro's arguments. Because I'm a bit strange, I'll do so in reverse order from that listed above. Personal liberty People's personal liberty is restricted by government all the time. Seat-belts or bicycle helmets also harm nobody but the user, but they are (often) restricted by the government. Why? Because ultimately, it's in the government's interest not to have people die. I gave three good points of analysis in round two as to why personal liberty must often be restricted. The first was that marijuana removes personal liberty because it is addictive. While my opponent may assert that it is only mentally addictive, this doesn't matter. The liberty is still removed. Second, I said that all liberties must be weighed against the price of that liberty. My opponent ignored this analysis. Third, I said that there is no reason why any particular liberty should be a fundamental right. My opponent still has offered no reason. Overall, my opponent ignored two out of three pieces of my counter-analysis, and didn't really engage with the third. Therefore, I think I can safely claim that this point falls to me. Harm vs Punishment My overall argument is that we're not talking about the punishment at all - rather, this is a debate about legalization. Nonetheless, my opponent writes: "Would anyone prescribe the death penalty for shoplifting? This would be outrageously unfair." I agree that it would be. Ultimately I think the punishment should be proportional to how big a problem marijuana is in that particular country. However, I think most countries have the balance right. Most countries currently impose a small fine. This can hardly be called a "severe" punishment. My opponent claims that there is no harm to others. This would only be true if medical care was completely privatized, because the cost of medical care is bourne by all of society. Medical care costs increase when Marijuana smokers increase. Thus there is a harm to others. Thus my opponent has not met this facet of his burden of proof either. Reduced Costs My opponent claims cost of policing would decrease, and taxes would increase. First, taxes would not increase. Many places, like Amsterdam, have been unable to raise any taxes at all. Further, look at cigarette taxes. Do they completely offset the extra medical costs incurred by smokers? Of course not! They never do. The net effect on the governments books would be a clear decrease. The cost of policing is about the same. People under the influence of cannabis are more likely to commit other crimes, such as damage property. Police must therefore transfer to doing other duties instead of cannabis policing. The reduced costs argument therefore doesn't stack up. Education Education can only go so far. We teach kids about safe sex, yet we still have HIV. Most countries already do have education about cannabis, but people use it anyway. Most people are aware of safer alternative methods, but then again, the most frequent form of use is the joint. I think it is a little silly to say that education will really mitigate the danger of cannabis any more than it already does. I predicted, right from the start of this debate, that my opponent could not meet the burden of proof: to show one good reason why cannabis should be legal. My opponent has failed in this respect. Therefore I should win this debate. Vote con for a drug-free society!