Resolved: the United States Government's War on Drugs should be continued in it's entirety

Thank you, THEBOMB, for your response. 1-. Unconstitutional "Gonzales v. Raich" was a 6-3 opinion, giving me plenty of room for argument. The Constitution specifically allows Congress to regulate trade "among the several states," and to extend this power to anything that may affect interstate commerce is to mock the idea of limited government upon which the federal government was founded. Prohibition required the 18th Amendment to authorize Congress to engage in a war against alcohol, and the War on Drugs requires the same. Congress's goal isn't even really to prevent interstate commerce, but to prevent the use of particular drugs by everybody, and to prevent a state from legalizing the growth and use of any drug just because a small part of it would spill over into other states and would make the job that they undertook a little more difficult is simply tyranny. 1+. Unhealthy It seems desperate to have to classify inanimate objects as enemies; drugs don't even fit any dictionary definitions of the word [9]. My opponent brings up the social contract, but the social contract exists to protect people's natural rights, which include the rights to liberty and property, which most definitely encompass drug use. He claims that a drug economy would destabilize America, but we already have large drug economies with legalized alcohol and tobacco, and society remains stable. My opponent is acting alarmist to a threat that simply does not exist, and trying to use it to justify government intervention into the lives of the American people. I acknowledged that drugs are harmful, but pointed out the right of the people to use drugs anyway. I should add that nicotine is just as addictive as cocaine, if not more so [10], and yet the tobacco industry isn't destroying America. If my opponent feels that beer and cigarettes are so dangerous, why isn't he pushing for a renewed Prohibition? 2+. Decreased use With so few data points provided by my opponent, we have no idea how variable drug usage is in America. It may be full of peaks and troughs as drug culture changes; if there was a spike of drug use in 1995 and a sudden drop in 1999, suggesting little correlation with drug policy, my opponent's chosen data would not reflect that. In any analysis, graphs are infinitely more useful than endpoints. He assumes that he provided the high point and low point with no evidence. I'm calling statistical shenanigans. It's an insult to science to pretend that we can conclude anything from such limited information. My opponent again claims that alcohol deaths and use were down during Prohibition, but during Prohibition, the entire drinking scene went underground. Many people drank and died in secret, with nobody to collect their data for analysis. If a counter-source is desired to the book that my opponent actually didn't cite, though, I have this: [11]. It is true that Portuguese culture is not American culture, but what about the culture differences of the two countries could possibly lead decriminalization to have such drastically different effects on different areas? I'm all ears. My opponent falsely claims that decriminalization is outside the scope of this debate. He is affirming that the War on Drugs be continued in its entirety; as long as I establish a single tenant of the War that should be scaled back, reduced in scope, or eliminated entirely, the resolution is negated. 3+. Crime My opponent dismisses the elimination of cartels as if it were nothing, although I'd like to think that eliminating drug cartels would make just about everybody better off, especially those living in gang areas. Driving under the influence may be dangerous, but it's hardly a new thing; we already have drunk driving problems, but the solution isn't to ban alcohol, as many townships discovered as they tried to interfere with the policies of their local bars [12]. My opponent provides some Justice Department data linking drug use and crime, but correlation is not causation. I should also add that the report specifically groups alcohol with drugs, and the War on Drugs does nothing to stop alcohol abuse. Many crimes are committed for drug money, but people don't commit crimes to get their beer and cigarettes, because those are legal and cheap. Drug legalization would significantly decrease the crime problem. Sure, the drug users won't be very productive while high, but it's preferable to them being in jail. Drug legalization would also make seeking treatment more socially acceptable, as people would not have to admit to a crime to seek help. Regarding the price drop, my opponent reasonably asks for proof, and I reasonably give it: the price of marijuana would drop by about 90% after legalization by eliminating the high mark-ups of smuggling, with a relatively tiny tax increase in response [13]. He also point out the costs of legalization, but people have the right to do what they want with their health, and take responsibility for their own damages. If people aren't working because they are high, such is their choice. This is a matter of economic analysis of opportunity cost. If someone would rather have the pleasure of drug use than money from working, what right do you have to intervene? A JAMA report cited here states that "[n]inety-two percent of the domestic abuse assailants reported use of alcohol or other drugs on the day of the assault" [14]. Note the inclusion of alcohol. My opponent cites a study claiming that further research is needed for a connection between alcohol and child abuse, but the full paragraph states that "several studies have indicated that parental alcohol abuse may increase a child's risk of experiencing physical or sexual abuse, either by a family member or by another person. Furthermore, researchers have proposed several hypotheses regarding the mechanisms through which parental alcohol abuse might contribute to the abuse or neglect of children." Clearly, a connection is at least suggested, with more evidence than one for any other drug. Meanwhile, my opponent falsely claims that Patrick Murphy was referring to illegal drugs, providing no quote to support himself. The article that mentions Murphy is cited numerous times on the internet, and not a single instance bothered to specify "illegal drugs," for good reason. 4+. Treaties I have sufficiently argued that the War on Drugs is indeed unconstitutional as my primary contention. 5+. Prison Population This is mostly a rehash of previous contentions that I have already refuted. My opponent still will not specify the illegal drugs involved, assuming them to be irrelevant, but they are not. I may advocate blanket legalization, but as long as I can demonstrate that a single illegal drug should indeed be legal, the resolution is negated. 6+. Trafficking I have already pointed out that these niche markets are so small that drug cartels would no longer be profitable, and instead very small drug rings will emerge. These will be much less dangerous than the cartels; ultimately, the world would be safer. It seems that my opponent will not accept anything short of complete elimination of a drug problem before accepting drug legalization, but this is an irrational view. No action solves all problems, but we can solve as much of them as we can. I sourced all claims where necessary; most of my claims were simply common knowledge or syllogistic. I believe my previous conclusion still stands just as well as before. Back to you, THEBOMB. Try to keep your sources in the debate itself this time. 9. http://dictionary.reference.com... 10. http://www.drugfree.org... 11. http://library.thinkquest.org... 12. http://pdfcast.org... 13. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 14. http://alcoholism.about.com...