War on drugs should be abolished

First of all, in the second contention of Round 2 it should say "harsh prison sentences," NOT "harsh prison citizens."I apologize for posting my rebuttal in Round 2. Feel free to give Pro the conduct point, but as I will demonstrate now, the arguments should definitely go to Con. Pro's rebuttal is brief, so I will review it line by line, and point by point.Refutations"First of all, drug users obviously cause harm to themselves by their usage of drugs"I would disagree with Pro here. It is our business if people are causing harm to themselves. If people are suffering, we have a moral obligation to assist them. This is why we have: suicide hotlines, counselors, psychiatrists, and rehab centers. To put things bluntly, Pro is being very insensitive here. I do agree, however, that a problem with drug usage should be treated as a medical condition. Unfortunately, this isn't relevant to the war on drugs though. I didn't think this would be necessary but just for clarification, the war on drugs is: "An initiative begun under the administration of US President Ronald Reagan that attempted to eliminate—or markedly decrease—drug abuse." [1]"Secondly, it is not uncommon for drug users to cause harm to other people Take for example, the fact that about 8,000 people are killed each year as a direct result of drug-related auto accidents. [1] [2] Additionally, the use of drugs results in more than 400,000 visits to the emergency room each year." Pro makes a blatant bare assertion that violence is a result of drug users feeling as though they have been treated unfairly. Pro completely ignores the fact that 8,000 people are killed annually from drug-related auto accidents, so my point about drug users causing harm to other people still stands. As for crime going up as a result of prohibition of alcohol, I don't see how this is relevant. This is an event that took place over eighty years ago, and while it was illegal to sell or manufacture alcohol in the U.S., it was not illegal to consume it. This is the reason why organized crime was on the rise; It was illegal to sell and manufacture, but it was not illegal to consume. There was a demand, but there was no supply. This was a dream come true for criminals looking to make a profit. The war on drugs doesn't compare to prohibition because it is not legal to manufacture, sell, or consume drugs. The fact that 25,000 people die annually in alcohol-related crashes don't help Pro's case. It doesn't warrant the end of the war on drugs. Rather, it means we need to implement stricter laws to help curb drunk driving and provide for the safety of the public. "50,000 people are hospitalized for motorcycle accidents."By using a motorcycle as a method of transportation, you are not causing a significant risk to other people. You are causing a potential risk to yourself, but this is sufficiently negated by our traffic safety laws and the fact that motor cyclists are required to wear helmets. "23,000 kids go to the hospital each year for sledding accidents" Same thing as motor cycles, you aren't causing a significant risk to other people as you are when you are driving a car under the influence of drugs. "7,000,000 people go to the hospital every year for smoking related accidents"First of all, anything smoking related can hardly be called an "accident."Additionally, smoking tobacco does not produce the same mind-altering effects that illegal drugs do. Smoking tobacco may be bad for your health, but it does not impair your mental functions enough to warrant criminilization. Furthermore, we have laws concerning cigarettes and second-hand smoke to help protect other people. "I was simply showing how the cycle of crime directly relates from kids being deprived of their fathers over crimes that really shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, therefore, my argument stands."As I have said before, it is unfortunate that children are left without fathers but that does not warrant the legalization of drugs. We can't simply repeal a law because it puts fathers in jail. This argument is an emotional appeal and nothing more.Making drugs legal would make crime rates go down. I already established why prohibition isn't relevant to this resolution. See above. "Actually it makes perfect since. You know. Like when you want something really bad and when you finally get it, it loses appeal."No I don't, actually. Not only did you not refute my argument, but you are only stating your opinion here. There's literally no argumentation to be found here. "Ask yourself, would you rather have your next door neighbor smoke marijuana quietly and harmlessly next door without affecting you or would you rather have him imprisoned and your tax money pay for him."There's a lot more than just Marijuana that's illegal. You completely ignore the fact that drug users harm other people, and the fact that they harm themsevles and therefore, we are morally obligated to assist them.ConclusionThis debate isn't about whether or not addiction should be treated as a medical condition. This debate is about whether or not we should end the war on drugs. Pro's entire rebuttal in Round 2 was a result of a complete and utter misunderstanding of my arguments, as well as the resolution. I have more than adequately refuted Pro's arguments, and my arguments have just been misunderstood, and not attacked. For these reasons I see no other vote but Con. Thank you.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...