New Member Tournament: Drug Legalization

Thanks again Seraine. In my final round, I will go point by point and explain why you ought to vote Con.CrimePro continually argues that correlation=/=causation. Nowhere however, has he even touched my analysis that drugs decrease rationality and would logically lead to irrational things such as crime. He argues that there are other factors that lead to both crime and drug usage. That is true, nowhere was it contended that drugs were the sole cause of crime. I have, however, argued that drug usage lessens a persons ability to rationalize and can thus lead to crime, an argument that has not been properly refuted. Pro asks "If someone is a poor drug using criminal, why do we ignore the poor part and immediately assume that drugs caused the criminal to commit his crimes?" First of all, I never argued that we ought to ignore the affects of poverty and crime. However the staistics introduced in this round show that nearly a quarter of voilent crimes were committed under the influence. To ignore such a correlation is absolutely senseless. It isn't as if we are taking and examining isolated incidences-these are governmental statistics that constiently show a correlation. Besides, even if we accept that poverty cause crime more than drug usage does, what relavence does it bear to the debate? Absolutely none. The crime inducing effect of drugs has been proven beyond resonable doubt in this round. Observation: Even if we accept that drugs do not cause crime, their negative effects on the individuals who take them and their families are still a compelling reason for their criminalization.My Opponent concedes that a minority of drug users commit their crimes due to the engative affects of drugs. Automatically, this negates the resolution and destroys his second point. Cons concerns about more deaths being caused from the drug war rather than drugs themselves (which will be addressed shortly) only show us that the status quo needs to be changed, not the legality of drugs. With this concession, his second contention about the role of government must be dropped, because the government has an obligation "to protect peoples rights" as my Opponent stated in cross-examination. Thus since drugs inflict on the rights of others who do not want crimes to be committed on them, the government ought to criminalize drugs. Even if it only happens a minority of the time, we still must recognize that the net societal affect drugs have is negative and thus the government is justified in criminalizing them. Pro contends that only 3% of murders are caused due to the affects of drugs, as opposed to many more due to drug violence. However when analyzing the importance of this data (which is slight, considering that it concerns a single city. The data supporting the Con side is a nation-wide analysis.) we must think what it shows. My Opponent is attempting to show that the legalization of drugs would bring about less violence, however his previous concessions that drug affects DO cause violence, and that the government has an obligation to protect rights show that drugs ought not be criminalized. The negative affects of the drug war are problems that must be solved, but this only advocates a change in our methodology when it comes to fighting drugs. Pro argues "A study of marijuana users found that about 50% of the users used drugs daily. If they committed a crime, they would use drugs on the same day that they committed a crime and they probably committed it under the influence. But does that mean drugs caused the crime?" First of all, Marijuana is being left out of this debate. Secondly, no it would not prove that the drug affectss caused crime. However it has already been noted and conceded by my opponent that logically drug affects lead to crime. The evidence on this point overwhelmingly supports the Con side. Pro argues: "Drugs cause a few murders, and that is the negative effect. However, they do have an unseen positive effect and that is that when drugs are banned, the murders due to the illegal drug trade outweigh the murders due to the effects of drugs" However reading Pros data will invariably cause the reader to reach the conclusion that much of the illegal drug trade murders involve rival drug dealers killing eachother, which is actually beneficial to society. Drug dealers on balance provide more harm than good to society. Their removal of eachother is advantageous. We must also consider the implications behind legalization. What will these drug dealers do now? Honest labor? Highly doubtful. It is far more likely that they will turn to other forms of crime such as robbery which caus even more damage to society. Pro argues that " It is a basic economic fact that criminalizing something makes it more expensive, due to the risks involved with trafficking" TURN: The high cost turns off many potential users, showing more benefits that come from criminalization. Pro attempts to make this point support his side by stating that the increased price leads to more crime, however crime would increase in other respects. This is evident in many places, such as Amsterdam (well known for its liberal drug policies) yet is one of the most violent cities in Europe[1]. AddictionPro says that since some other drugs are less addictive than legal drugs (Tabacco and Alcohol) we ought to legalize them. However just because some harmful chemicals are legal does not at all justify legalizing all of them. The fact remains that they still have addictive qualities which show their harm to society. You can also turn my opponents statement " In addition, there is few drug addicts precisely because of how expensive drugs are, and most can only afford them on a sporadic basis." to my side. SocietyI will respond to Pros objections. What justifies societal harm?Common sense and societal opinion justify what is harmful. In this round we have learned that drugs cause large negative affects, and it has also been established that mainstream society is opposed to drug legalization. Surely this proves their harm. Pro argues that other, legal things, cause addicts but this is not relavent to the topic at hand because we are discussing drug legalization. Nothing else.Pro asks how being addicted to something is harmful to society. I ask the judges to think of a time they were addicted to something, and if they cannot to think of someone they know who was addicted. Imagine what you would have done to soothe your addiction. Imagine how much time and money you wasted on it. Then couple this with extreme adverse health affects and a loss of your ability to rationalize and now you have drugs. This is how addiction to drugs harms society.Pro argues that only a minotiry of drug users become addicts. Sadly, he has provided no warrant or evidence to this claim so it falls. Furthermore, it has been firmly established that drugs are highly addictive. Pro also asks why the government ought to prevent drug use, but he himself has answered this question! The government has an obligation to defend peoples rights and to defend society. ExceptionI actually must congratulate my opponent on this point, he has refuted the widespread usage of Rohyphnol as a date-rape drug. However he has been proven decisively wrong on all other points, so a con vote must be cast. Besides, since my Opponent is obligated to aruge for all drugs to be legalized, if the possibility exists that there is a drug that should by no means be legalized, than he has not met his burden of proof. The resolution is negated. Drugs lead to crime and are harmful to society.My Opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof. Please vote Con.Source:1. http://www.gustey.com...