The US should legalize drugs.

Thanks, fire_wings!I. Re: FrameworkI'll start with the framework real quick. It seems Con agrees with my cost-benefit analysis, and did not refute the idea of upholding personal liberty, so these both stand and will be used for this debate. As far as new arguments in the final round, this is a firm no. It was stated in the opening round rules that we will not have new arguments in the final round, and that as soon as Con accepts the debate he also accepts the rules. Therefore, no; new rules in the final round will not be accepted. If Con does so despite breaking the rules and my clarification, the rules state that he would lose the debate.II. Re: Secondhand ImpactThe first point is purely about tobacco and marijuana. Con cited no other sources providing research on smoking of other drugs. Therefore you must limit his argument to these two drugs. A. TobaccoAs far as smoking goes, we have many things in our society that pose slight dangers. For example, if you were to want to minimize deaths from automobile accidents, the speed limit would be 5 MPH everywhere. We accept certain risks in life. If you don't buy this first argument, however, smoking is already legal and this wouldn't be changed. Smoking is non-unique to the Pro world, which means that this point is irrelevant. Con cannot claim this as a harm when it exists in both worlds. Furthermore, we have many things in our society that pose slight dangers. For example, if you were to want to minimize deaths from automobile accidents, the speed limit would be 5 MPH everywhere. We accept certain risks in life. B. MarijuanaFirst note that Con's source was only one study that suggested this conclusion, not any sort of consensus. Second, realize that the effects on rats are not the same as the effects on humans and though this solitary study suggests that the short-term harms would translate to humans, this is not a guarantee. This is a weak argument. Next realize that marijuana would be used in public less than tobacco. Just as public intoxication is illegal, publicly being high would be too. Therefore, marijuana users would be using in their own homes (where being high would be more enjoyable anyway) and therefore exposure to second-hand smoke would be minimal, as others in the room would most likely either be doing so out of their own choosing or would be participating in use anyway. Public use of drugs would be illegal, mitigating all secondhand effects. Finally, the negative effects on the cardiovascular system cited in the study were temporary, not permanent. The harms from this are either close to or at zero at this point.III. Re: EconomyThis is false. Con provided no evidence for this claim (even in the other debate he linked) so we can't believe it when my constructive states the exact opposite. I proved that the government would save money by ending the drug war, would make money off tax revenue, and would save money on the prison costs once the population is cut drastically. Turn economy from a Con point to a Pro one.IV. Re: HealthA. LungsAgain, non-unique. Cross apply my statements against my opponent's second-hand effects point. Smoking exists regardless of whether we're examining Pro or Con world, so this argument is irrelevant. As far as marijuana use, there may be short-term cardiovascular issues but unless Con proves that the respiration issues and cancer are also applicable to marijuana, his "lungs" harms are irrelevant.B. TeethNon-unique once again. Creates no offense for Con.With regard to health as a whole, both of these are harms to the user. If we uphold personal liberty, the user should be able to harm his or her body as he or she pleases, and these are all harms to the body of the individual. Even if Con argues addiction here, we can see that the first usage is the choice of the individual, addiction merely compels him or her to continue. They were not addicted before first use. Furthermore, addiction would be more likely to be treated if usage was legal, as per evidence in my constructive. Cross apply this here.V. ConclusionLiterally the only unique offense Con provided was second hand marijuana smoke, which I clearly refuted by showing that being high in public would not be tolerated. Therefore Con has no ground in this debate while I still have outlined clear moral, economic, health, drug-war related, and prison-related benefits. For all of these reasons I encourage a vote for Pro. Thank you, now back to fire_wings!