Resolved: Just governments ought not persecute victimless crimes.

I value Morality because Ought implies moral obligation. Morality can only be measure in consequentalist ways. Sinnot-Armstrong (sites.duke.edu/wsa/papers/files/2011/05/wsa-anargumentforconsequentialism1992.pdf): I have a moral reason to feed my child (...) going home soon will enable me to feed her tonight. Therefore, there is a moral reason for me to go home. This argument assumes a special case of substitutability. If there is a moral reason for A to do X, and if A cannot do X without doing Y, and if doing Y will enable A to do X, then there is a moral reason for A to do Y. I will call this 'the principle of moral substitutability. This assumes some sort of consequentalist theory. Sinnot-Armstrong continues: What gives me a moral reason to start the mower is the consequences of starting the mower. (...) any non-consequentialist moral theory will have to posit two distinct kinds of moral reasons: one for starting the mower and another for mowing the grass. Once these kinds of reasons are separated, we need to understand the connection between them. Only the consequences unite these two reasons. So if the consequences of prosecuting these crimes are bad, you affirm. BOP is on neg since the government would be using some resources and those can't be spent without a good reason. CONTENTION 1 is drug crimes. Drug possession is victimless yet it is illegal, and the consequences are awful. Zakaria: (http://content.time.com...) We here in America make up 5% of the world's population but we make up 25% of the jailed prisoners. (...) convictions went from 15 inmates per 100,000 adults in 1980 to 148 in 1996, an almost tenfold increase. More than half of America's federal inmates today are in prison on drug convictions. In 2009 alone, 1.66 million Americans were arrested on drug charges, more than were arrested on assault or larceny charges. And 4 of 5 of those arrests were simply for possession. Over the past four decades, the U.S. has spent more than $1 trillion fighting the war on drugs. And, this causes crime. Count the Costs: (http://www.countthecosts.org...) Street crime and sex work blighting urban environments has its roots in the war on drugs. These problems result from the criminally controlled supply and dramatically inflated prices the drug war has created. (...) 900,000 criminally active gang members"a third of them juveniles(12) " in 20,000 street gangs, in over 2,500 cities, dominate the US drugs trade. (...) 95% of street sex work is drug-motivated. (...) these problems are virtually absent from legal alcohol and tobacco markets, underlining that they stem from the current law enforcement-based approach. Remember all the gangs in the prohibition era? The US repealed that. It's about time we decriminalize drug possession as well. It even causes insane court clog. (http://broken-no-more.org...) Our courts are clogged with case after case of petty drug use crime, such as possession of drug paraphernalia, a minor amount of marijuana, or addicts who have engaged in low-level non-violent criminal and illegal activities to get their drug of choice. Sometimes addicts are put back in prison not because they committed a new crime, but because they relapsed and dropped dirty, a parole violation. It should be obvious that our current public policies on Law Enforcement and addiction are not working. How is it possible that over six million of our citizens are convicted felons? CONTENTION 2 is the economy. Excess prisoners are causing an economic crisis. Sterling: (http://www.forbes.com...) The political dynamic of being tough on crime and drugs led to a dramatic expansion of the population with a criminal record. (...) expanded criminal punishment that has reduced opportunities for education, job training, employment, credit, marriage, and ultimately, American productivity and consumer buying power. Today, tens of millions of Americans " would-be consumers " because they have been convicted of a drug offense, aren"t earning what they could earn without a record. Our prison population, estimated as high as 2.3 million persons, is out of the car market. (...) While most of those offenses were instances of youthful bad judgment, the consequences for the economy last for decades. CONTENTION 3 is autonomy and util. Under a utilitarian theory, where maximizing happiness is good, or a theory where autonomy is best, classifying these actions as crimes is wrong. They let people do what they want to maximize happiness. Under any moral theory, prohibiting actions for arbitrary reasons is wrong. If my opponent says it"s for the good of the person to discourage it, what about underage consensual sex? Take Zach Anderson (https://www.change.org...). This was completely consensual, so the punishment is arbitrary. If two people want to do something like this, why was Zachery punished? And if this can be punished, where is the line drawn? At what point does the state do anything they want? Where is the line between totalitarianism and doing something for someone"s own good? If a victimless "crime" can be considered a crime, then there is something wrong. Underview: No neg RVIs or NIBS: RVI"s destroy my ability to read theory because you can collapse in the NR; incentivize you to be abusive in the NC because you can just go for RVI or one dropped condition in the 2NR. You can win off truly abusive positions just by virtue of the last speech with new arguments - making 1AR theory a game over for me. Destroys education because you are incentivized to be abusive and then collapse the theory plus the RVI. I will have to win something with less time since I have to focus on multiple issues as well. All neg counterplans must have a solvency advocates - only way to differentiate between actual lit and fringe blogs. I can"t prepare for infinite NCs so at least ignore ones that are complete crap. If there is no CP text presume the US status quo as the counter advocacy. Presume aff: a. You assume a statement is true if it sounds reasonable. b. Strat skew: I have to debate blind, but the neg can alter their strat since they speak second; he gets new arguments last and convince you last, advantages that influence judges. c. Neg is classifying something as a crime and that requires justification. For all these reasons, I affirm the topic and look forward to my opponent's response.