Drug Legalization: The War on Drugs has been a failure.

REFUTATIONSocial ContractThe social contract just states that we have to give up 'certain' rights and liberties. It never specifies what rights we actually have to give up. Hobbes specifically stated the rights to 'plunder, rape and murder' were rights we would have to give up, among others. Victimless crimes we're never specified. Legalization would increase usersI'll revisit this next round to save space. I'm not choosing to concede this, like I said I'll revisit it later. However, I'd like to spend more time on the other two arguments, as refutation will prove more valuable to my time. Drugs negatively impact society- I don't find the Chinese Opium argument very effective. It happened way too long ago to try to make a connection to today's drug policies. Also, I attribute the force of an oppressive British empire as more of a force of the opium outbreak, as the Chinese couldn't pass any measures without provoking British retaliation. The Chinese did try to propose a ban on opium, which failed and lead to a war with Britain. However, its unknown whether the ban would of actually worked. -Your source that explains 83% of Chicago arrestees were on drugs was vague. When I read it, over half of the arrestees were on marijuana. Of those on Marijuana, almost all of them were there for simple drug charges that otherwise wouldn't be there if it were legal. So the 83% figure is misleading. -Your source that explains that 80% of inmates across the nation had drug or alcohol use was from 1998, so its a little outdated. However, the study confirms that only 3% of inmates convicted of violent crimes were on cocaine, and only 1% were on heroin. When looking at alcohol, however, the percentage of inmates convicted of violent crimes we're intoxicated was at a staggering 21%. Also, I'll be referencing your own source later to confirm one of my main arguments that jail time does not work in stopping drug use, and rehabilitation works better. "1. If drugs are legalized and use increases the amount of crime would increase negatively impacting society.2. Even if use did not increase the very fact that drugs cause harm to society in this way means government cannot condone it, or it would be breaking it's social contract obligation."1. I will explain a little later how prohibition increases the amount of time, rather than the usage itself2. Guns and knives also cause harm to society, yet government condones them. Fast food causes harm to society, yet government condones them. If all these things are used like they're supposed to be used, and in moderation, then its fine. Same thing with drugs, as long as they're being used in moderation and like they're supposed to be used, then the social contract isn't being broke- In response to your monetary burden argument, most of that $181B comes from enforcing the drug laws that aren't working, and the cost it takes to maintain these people in prison. -Obviously pregnant women shouldn't take drugs. Like I said earlier, using drugs in moderation, not in situations like that. As for parents of children, the problem with prohibition is that when they get caught with drugs, they go to jail, which is worse than the use itself. When they get out, that criminal record prevents them from getting a job, not even accounting for wages lost while in prison, which harms their family's even more. The current War on Drugs has not been a complete failure."Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified." - U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske[1]- In response to both of your stories of the busts, neither of those busts had any effect on the trade at all"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the nonprofit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City."[1]- In response to the $135 million dollars of cocaine that never made it to the streets, that's great, but doesn't hurt the cartels at all. Using my source in my main argument saying cartels bring in $39 billion dollars a year, those 168 bales of cocaine seized by the U.S. government only accounted for 3/10s of a percent of the cartel's income. The cartels don't even feel the effect of that cocaine being contained by the U.S.Along with Prohibition failing to meet its main goals: reduce drug use and reduce availability, Prohibition is also doing nothing to help rehabilitate users. Repeated study, survey, and real life example proves increased rehabilitation reduces use, and increased police forces and harsher drug laws increase drug use. I'll show some examples:-The Rockefeller drug law imposes a 15-year-to-life jail sentence for anyone in possession of four or more ounces of narcotics. Since this was equal to second-degree murder, many thought the law would work great, right? Wrong. Not only did drug convictions increase, but recidivism rates(likelihood of someone re-entering jail for the same crime) significantly increased.[2]-People who received drug rehabilitation instead of jail time:[2]-Were re-arrested within a 12 month period 18% less of the time-Were convicted of a crime 23% less of the time-Received a new sentence within a 12 month period 21% less of the time-According to your own source, of the 840,000 prisoners needing drug treatment, only about 150,000 actually got the treatment before being released. Joseph Califano, who served under president Jimmy Carter, commented on this statistic[3]'The most troublesome aspect of these grim statistics is that the nation is doing so little to change them. Releasing inmates without treating their drug or alcohol addictions was tantamount to visiting criminals on society. Such negligence only sustained the market for illegal drugs and supported drug dealers"-Now lets study Europe.1) Switzerland implemented a new set of policies and programs, some of which included heroin substitution programs, which focused on public health rather than criminalization in the 1980s. These programs proved to be tremendously successful: It substantially reduced consumption and demand amongst the heaviest users, reduced property crimes by up to 90% amongst users in the program, and removed local addicts and dealers.[4] 2)The UK found charges brought against 1,500 drug users that entered treatment was reduced by 48%[4]3)The Netherlands implement Large-scale, low-threshold drug treatment and harm reduction programs, and sometimes even prescribe heroin under strict conditions. Because of this, the Netherlands have the lowest amount of heroin users, have no now influx of new or problematic users, and found that medical heroin reduces crime and increases positive effects on the health of people struggling with addiction. [4]4)When Portugal decriminalized drugs, and treated drug users as health patients instead of criminals, problematic users dropped by 50%. Much of this success is also attributable to "confluence of treatment and drug reduction policies".[5]-“The available scientific evidence suggests that increasing the intensity of law enforcement interventions to disrupt drug markets is unlikely to reduce drug gang violence. Instead, the existing evidence suggests that drug-related violence and high homicide rates are likely a natural consequence of drug prohibition and that increasingly sophisticated and well-resourced methods of disrupting drug distribution networks may unintentionally increase violence."[4]Sources1 http://www.cbsnews.com...2. http://www.rehabinfo.net...3. http://www.nytimes.com...4 http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org...5. http://www.forbes.com...