All 'drugs' should be made legal and be controlled by the state.

My Rebuttle The classic response of individuals who possess no first hand knowledge or experience of narcotics is to turn to statistics as the basis for their arguments (it's worth pointing out at this stage that I did indeed mention statistics in my opening statement, but only that they would add weight - at no stage did I proclaim they would form the substance of my argument). Unfortunately this approach is fundamentally flawed - especially when it comes to percentages. In fact, the repeated use of statistics in this field is a laughable and extremely naive approach when you consider the simple fact that most of these statistics are basically estimates, fabrications and averages that have no solid basis in fact at all. Why? Apart from individuals that have checked into clinics or been seen by doctors or taken part in a survey, do you honestly believe that the government and it's statisticians have managed to collate data from the hidden 'underground' drug culture? Are cannabis smokers, LSD takers and heroin users actively taking part in surveys or questionnaires? Unfortunately, this critical flaw in the argument against legalisation comes up again and again. It is a way of people with no real-world experience of narcotics to attempt to demonise something they don't understand. This includes my opponent, politicians and law-makers who use drug policy and statistics as a way to perpetuate myths. The 'War On Drugs' as we know it was started in the thirties by a lobbyist called Harry Anslinger (http://bit.ly...) who was to become the worlds first 'Drug Czar' - an informal title for the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a role that is mirrored in other governments. He used specific substances and the cultural consumption of them amoungst ethnic minorities in New York as a way of marginalising and segregating, a way of vilifying groups of human beings that didn't happen to be white, but were mixing with white people - amazingly, the prime examples revolve around jazz clubs. Not only that, usage of the word 'marijuana' was proliferated to ensure that cannabis was made to sound foreign and alien. "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry Anslinger It is incredible how the antiquated and poorly-informed 'war on drugs' was started in the early part of the 20th century based on next to no knowledge of the compounds and chemicals which make up the substances and their historical use. Science and social anthropology in the context of 'drugs' were not understood. Instead, the premise was based on propaganda that would now appear to be fascist. The bottom line is, all of the laws in place today to control drugs stem from this one mans crusade to rise to the top of the political tree by instilling fear and prejudice in middle white America. Confronted with the threat of an invasion by 'marijuana' fuelled foreign crazies would have been enough to convince the voting populice that they needed a man like Anslinger to stop this 'Satanic' music and it's perpertrators continuing to pollute white America in the literal sense through inter-racial relationships and offspring. This has formed the foundation for drug law as we know it today, and has not been allowed to be reviewed since as it is still a powerful tool for propaganda and vote-winning during elections. In direct reference to C1. which uses Deterrence Theory as a basis for the assumption that 'legalization would increase usage', what fundament does this have in real-world law enforcement? None at all. Unfortunately, my opponent assumes that humans in general would not be able to help themselves and will indulge, or use, or consume drugs in increased numbers. The bottom line is - the numbers will increase. Why? If governments controlled drugs, they would actually have useful, meaningful and accurate data and statistics (unlike the fabrications supplied by government agencies and my opponent) which could inform us all about the scale of use. At the moment, there is no real data (as I have already pointed out), so therefore the true numbers may indeed shock weak-hearted conservatives such as my opponent. The irony is that a large proportion of adults consume alcohol, the most popular drug, the most accepted narcotic. In fact, almost all adults will have tried alcohol at some stage. Unfortunately for my opponent, this means that he lives in a country filled with drug users - including family members and even the President - yet this doesn't provide any shock value at all. In regards to paragraph 2 of C1., my opponent has completely failed to understand the debate topic. The second part of the topic title is that the legalisation be 'controlled by the state'. In the UK, governments place tax and duty on alcohol and tobacco, and are even talking about legislating to put a minimum price on alcohol (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...). The taxes also bump up the retail price. In real terms, what this means is that alcohol and tobacco taxes provide some of the funds necessary to provide rehabilitation and treatment for those who suffer from diseases related to consumption. Prices, if controlled by the state, would include taxes which could provide rehabilitation and treatment. At present the black market has no provision for this. Using expressions like 'in theory and in practice' when referring to an idea about drug pricing that has no basis in real-word data or even relevance in regards to the topic title is unfortunate. Including a reference to a study from the 19th Century as a point in an argument really has no bearing on modern life and uses the same form of fabricated statistics which we have established as being fundamentally flawed. Also, cannabis use is to this day a hotly debated topic, and again, due to a lack of solid data my opponent has invalidated his own argument. Holland is a prime example of decriminalisation of this 'drug' presenting no real danger to its general populace. I would urge my opponent to stop using antiquated, isolated information in order to support his case. The fact remains that due to individuals like my opponent we lack the knowledge we really need to understand any problems that arise because of narcotic consumption. Unfortunately the perpetuation of ideals such as his, and the continued illegality of narcotics, we might never understand the true scale of use or abuse in the world - it's this group of people that assume that drug laws fundamentally stop people from taking drugs! This is an extremely naive and laughable assumption. The greatest irony about C2. is the fact that my opponent has chosen to ignore the fact that a multitude of crimes have been literally created as a result of prohibition already. In fact, your former president shared this sentiment: "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln Drug cartels, street dealers and the violence that comes along with this could all be avoided if drugs were controlled. Again, to assume that black markets would completely disappear is naive and not something that I've suggested at any point. The fact remains that human beings like to get footloose and fancy free and for millennia have found all manner of substances that facilitate this. I believe that enforcing pointless laws and spending billions of taxpayers dollars fighting an unwinnable war on 'drugs' isn't working... do you?