Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA

Thank you for being patient for my arguments, time for my rebuttals. R1. Saving Lives My opponent seems to be under the impression that I support drug use. So, I will concede that I do not, and that drug use can lead to harmful side effects. My argument is aimed to show how legalizing drugs will decrease lives loss from drug abuse. I have already given an example of how the Netherlands legalized illicit drugs with heavy regulation to produce a result of fewer people dying and consuming illicit and harmful drugs. We see this trend because with regulation we are seeing safer drugs as the illegal street dealers are not selling them, the government is. According to a UN document, the legal “coffee shops” where one would find their drug, 400 million euros are generated annually from tax revenues. This is money not going into the illegal street dealers hands, which is a good thing. After all, illegal street vendors of drugs do not have their content tested for its contents. With regulation from the FDA, we will see less harmful chemicals put into these drugs, mitigating its potential to kill. We can see harmful examples of street drugs that are more dangerous than standard marijuana with the intervention of “Molly”, and synthetic marijuana if we turn toward the National Institute of Health. There have been reportedly growing trends in these more dangerous street drugs that are flooding an already dangerous market. If we were to regulate and legalize drugs we would actually be able to stop the spread of such harmful substances by taking money from the street dealers. So while I will agree that drugs should be considered harmful and unhealthy, the more important point in today’s debate is saving lives, which you will vote pro for if you would like to do. R2. Therapy There are already anti-drug commercials, however, with increased regulation by the FDA and with a growing trend in people who are more informed about drugs and their harms through school, we can imagine that if it is not working than we need a different solution. This solution is most certainly to legalize drugs. If we do this, we would be able to clearly identify the people who need help with abuse. In the status quo, if people are addicted to drugs, it would mean jail time to tell someone about the problem, at least, in the consumer’s mind. However, by legalizing and regulating drugs, drug abusers would have a clear conscience and would be put at ease when they realize they can speak up about their addictions without being jailed. R3. Youth My opponent argues that the resolution will harm children. This is untrue as when we look at the heavy regulations which will be administered by the FDA, which will actually further limit the supply of drugs in the status quo. I have already explained this in my first rebuttal, however, I will explain again. By heavily regulating the drugs once it becomes an industry in the private sector such as taxing and setting an age for when it is legal to consume, we would be diverting money that would have originally just gone to the black market. This would shrink the unregulated illegal drug trade by replacing it with a much safer legal drug trade that is regulated by dose, contents, and safety by the FDA. R4. Public Opinion My opponent has brought up the point that we seem to be pro-marijuana and that by legalizing drugs, we would be putting people at risk using a slippery slope argument that states we would eventually start to become more accessible due to lighter opinions about hardcore drugs. This is unlikely given the current state of lobbying against drugs. According to the Center for Responsive Politics police unions, the alcohol, and tobacco industries, and even private prison corporations have all lobbied against legalizing drugs which do change popular opinion of the people and the government. Also, keep in mind the plethora of school programs that are used to show the harms of illicit drugs on the body, which are still popular today. It is reasonable to assume that public opinion on drugs, in general, seem to be low beside the people who actually take them that delude themselves by not weighing the pros and cons. R5. Current Debate Since I have established that there will be lives saved as opposed to lost, we need to balance the debate in another way as well. Namely, we must look at the economic gain that I have mentioned in my first and second contentions. My opponent has to address how my economic points do not stand since I have shown that his points on saving lives simply don’t hold water. I will state again that we would be earning a lot through jobs and increased tax revenue which will bolster our economy and provide funding for the important policy that needs to be passed for the benefit of our constituents. If you would like more specific examples, please review my previous arguments mad in my first speech. Also, my opponent has yet to list where he is finding his facts and statistics to back up his points, so he cannot confirm that any of his positions are actually true within actual figures, and not just logical analysis. As clearly shown, the pro side is clearly winning today's round. I await my opponent’s response. Thank you. Sources: https://www.drugabuse.gov... https://www.unodc.org... http://www.opensecrets.org...