The USFG should legalize all drugs

Thank you Fourtrouble for this opportunity to debate. “I personally, and my administration’s position, is that legalization is not the answer." President Barack Obama (1)Observation:We are arguing if something should or should not be legal. It is important to note what it is we are not arguing. For example, we are not arguing what punishments are or are not justified. Likewise, we are not arguing about overcrowded prisons, or mandatory minimums, these are not relevant topics to the resolution. Many who argue about drugs often argue that they should be decriminalized. Again, while an interesting and important topic it is not directly related to this debate. For example, It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. Now that we have covered what is not being debated, we can get to the core issue. This debate rests solely on the question of if all drugs should be legalized. Emphasis on all, if I can reasonabley show why any drug should remain illegal Fourtrouble loses. I will present my argument in two parts. The first being that the U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs, and the second, that the Government protects citizens through the rule of law. By arguing such it will become clear that the U.S. Government should not legalize all drugs.Argument Part 1: The Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs.My case here is quite simple (P = Premise, C = Conclusion)P1: The U.S. government ought to protect citizens from harm.P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by DrugsC: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs.P1: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from harmTo understand what the government ought to do it is important to understand the Role of government. The supreme Law of the U.S. is the Constitution. The authors included a preamble that summarized the core values and purpose of Government. Some of those values and goals listed were “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare….”Such governments could only accomplish these goals and realize their purpose if citizens are protected from harm. There can be no justice, tranquility, general welfare etc. if citizens are subject to harm that the government could reasonably prevent. That is to say Governments ought to protect their citizens from harm.P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by drugsFrom the U.S. government website devoted to facts about drugs (2)(3) We find a pleathora of information that demonstrates the harm drugs cause. For example, We find that Herion can cause "clouded thinking; alternate wakeful and drowsy states; itching; nausea; vomiting; slowed breathing and heart rate..... Dangerous slowdown of heart rate and breathing, coma, death."(3) Furthermore, We find that Cocain can cause "insomnia, restlessness; anxiety; erratic and violent behavior, panic attacks, paranoia, psychosis; heart rhythm problems, heart attack; stroke, seizure, coma." (3)These are just two examples. Talk about harm. Drugs harm in many ways. It is not a stretch to assume that someone who’s mood is altered, having hallucinations, is paranoid, prone to erratic and violent behavior, and/or having suicidal thoughts poses a threat to themselves and others."The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Household Survey on Drug Abuse asks individuals living in households about their dug and alcohol use and their involvement in acts that could get them in trouble with the police... those who use cannabis or cocaine were much more likely to commit crimes of all types than those who did not use these substances. Of those reporting use... during 1991, 26.1% also report that they committed violent crimes during the year."(4)We see that drug use is linked to violent crime. That is to say harm to others. Legalizing a drug does not remove the harms inherent to that drug. Thus we see that Citizens can be and often are harmed by Drug use in the U.S.Conclusion of Part 1:As P1 and P2 are affirmed that the U.S. government ought to protect citizens from harm and that Citizens can and often are harmed by drugs it follows logically that the U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs. Argument Part 2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.How does a government “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… , promote the general Welfare….?” Simple; through the rule of law.Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. Put another way. The Government is subject to law as are citizens of this nation. How is it that the government can protect citizens from the harm of drugs as we have established it should if the laws that make this protection possible are repealed? Simply put it cannot. If all drugs are legalized the government cannot fill its duty. Governments ought to protect citizens from Drugs. To do this it becomes necessary for the law to enable the government to do so. Many drugs are harmful and are thus rightly outlawed.Conclusion:It has become clear that;1: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from drugs.How is that done?2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.From these two points it logically follows that;C: The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from drugs.This is why I am opposed to the resolution; that is to say that the U.S. Government should not legalize all drugs.Sources:(1)http://www.nytimes.com...(2) http://www.drugabuse.gov...(3) http://www.drugabuse.gov...(4)http://www.bjs.gov...