The United States Should End the War on Drugs

"Next Con writes, "As I explained, most drugs currently legal should be banned. " I don't remember Con explaining this, and if he had, I would have pointed out the severe flaws in this avocation. " Second to last paragraph of R2. "5. And finally - "The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes. "" Yes. Most Americans simultaneously claim to know two contradictory things. If you want to make semantic argument as to what the meaning of "know" is, then fine. Taking my statements out of context doesn't change the fact that most people are terrified of Heroin but have no problem doping up on (nearly identical) painkillers, which is a clear contradiction of logic, and not a contradiction on my part. My opponent still seems to contend the effectiveness of prohibition. She claims that prohibition is only successful because it has made drugs difficult to acquire and that many people have no will to use the drug due to the stigma and misinformation bombarding them. While I do not contend my opponents claims, I do not see how they implicate prohibition as being non effective. Pro continues to assert that there is no evidence that prohibition is the reason why so few people use hard drugs. However, as I previously explained, it's reasonable to assume that when a prohibited drug that is safer and more pleasurable is used at a rate of almost one hundred time less than a more dangerous drug, prohibition has worked. "As I've explained in R2, drug use has been steadily on the rise. Just because most people don't do it because they can't or because they have been lied to about the repercussions is hardly a strong argument in my opponent's favor. Many simply don't want to, plus supply is low. " In other words, the War on Drugs works. Small increases in hard drug use are not indicative of a failure. Marijuana use is up because the government has grown passive in it's social engineering and hasn't released a fake/rigged study since the 70's, and hasn't taken steps to censor studies showing marijuana's beneficial effects since the 90's. If manipulation of information can bring about a social good, there is no reason that such action should not be taken. Pro continues to contend that I have not justified my position regarding government regulation of individuals. However, I have clearly maintained that distinction between the two is arbitrary, and she has not disputed this. Trying to argue that government intervention somehow tramples individual liberties simply begs the question as to whether such liberties exist. If one is bound by the programming of their own personality, then the concept of liberty is simply an illusion. Simply put, I have shown that prohibition prevents destructive behavior. Ergo, government is a better master than personal programming in this specific case. "Furthermore, Con never presented a rebuttal to the fact that the WOD leads to a perpetuation of the under class, destruction of families, a significant deficit and burden on tax payers, government lies, government profiting at their "slaves" expense, and most importantly the inevitable gang violence and other severe, violent crime that is completely detrimental to our society and distracting our law enforcement while simultaneously costing us trillions. " Dropping the "States Rights" proxy and going with full out federal enforcement effectively solves these issues as per examples already provided, with the exception of cost. That being said, I cannot put a price tag on human life. Pro argues that people will still get high using legal means. The obvious response is to either make such means illegal or place stringent regulations on such items, such as making markers who's fumes cannot be huffed, banning certain types of glue, or requiring potential ingredients to be adulterated so as to be unusable (such as with morning glory seeds used to make LSD). In summery, I have shown that through legal sanctions and social manipulation, one can reduce drug consumption drastically. I maintain that there is no distinguishable difference between government sanctions and the programming of one's personality, and as such any claim to personal liberty is arbitrary and nonsensical. Personal autonomy may be preferable in some situations where government cannot physically micromanage something, but I have shown that this is not such a scenario. As such, the government should continue to regulate personal behavior and strengthen its level of enforcement.