The U.S. should legalize all drugs

I thank Con for his good response, and will now defend my arguments.1. OverdoseCon misses the bulk of this argument. He never disputed that my legalization plan would solve for 86% of all drug-related deaths. Thus, extend my saving of thousands of lives. While he says that the risk of overdose proves drugs are bad, the previous concession means that drugs become safe through voting Pro.Next, my opponent (strangely) advocates legalizing heroin or cocaine to reduce overdose. Cool, glad we agree on something. Finally, Con said the media glorifies drug abuse, not demotes it. Doubtful. I ask the judges to think of a time when heroin or cocaine was mentioned in a positive manner on the news. Also try to think of a movie that had a drug-related theme, that didn't have a bad ending. Also, try to think of a TV show about drugs that doesn't portray them as destructive and taboo. The list is very long. This proves the argument that illegality prevents the spread of life-saving info about illegal drugs. Purity overdoseCon complains that don't give a source on it. However, a source isn't necessary because I gave logical analysis as to why differences in purity (a by-product of criminalization) creates overdose. Con says that legal substances like alcohol also have different purities. Correct. But even if this happens to drugs, these purity levels and proper dosage amount would still be posted on the bottle, preventing a risk of OD. 2. AdulterantsCon first claims that most substances drugs are adulterated with are either harmless or in different countries. First, note the word most. The Gordon evidence showed that dealers sometimes add other drugs into their substances, which cause severe medical problems. He also dropped my Paracetamol argument, whereby drugs are cut with painkillers which react badly with other medications.Con makes a good point about drug dealers not wanting to hurt their customers, thus they don't harmfully "cut" their drugs. Though this makes sense, its empirically disproven as the Gordon and Kaa evidence prove that adulteration does happen. The likely explanation is that dealers don't make their drugs harmful intentionally, not realizing that adding other drugs or painkillers to their substances is incredibly dangerous. But this would be solved through legalization because these uneducated dealers wouldn't be the primary distributors of drugs.Con says the risk of overdose is grounds to keep drugs illegal. I have two responses. First, the only reason overdose is a problem is because drugs are illegal, as per overdose being caused by criminalization. Second, turn - the status quo prevents research that would reduce the harms of drugs. Due to cigarettes being legal, research has been done that has developed the Electronic Cigarette, which according to 16 studies are hundreds of times safer than normal cigarettes and reduce cravings (1). Legalization would allow such work to be done on psychoactive substances as well, which could further reduce their harms. 3. AIDSCon thinks we can open needle-exchange centers while drugs are illegal. However, 47 states have laws that disallow the distribution of syringes (2). Full drug legalization would be the ideal method to overcome it. Also, I ask judges to picture a world where drug users can all get together and hang out in hundreds of places across the country, and get free needles to support their habit. Does it sound like drugs are illegal and condemned under this scenario? No, this requires legalization. 4. Drug cartelsCon ridiculously states that drug dealers killing each other is good. This is implying that people who give white powder to other people deserve death for their actions. This is a violation of justice.Moving on, my opponent thinks drugs cause crime, and thus is grounds for criminalization. I have a few responses:First, he doesn't explain why this is a reason to negate. Lets assume drugs cause crime. To make this argument work, my opponent would need to somehow prove that the status quo is reducing drug-related crime. In other words, he would have to show that legalizing would lead to more drug use and thus lead to more drug crime, which he doesn't do. Thus, he's not gaining any advantage.Second, turn - legalization would reduce drug use and thus reduce drug-related crime. The Netherlands have over 700 "coffee shops" where marijuana is legally sold, yet they have significantly lower usage rates than the US, where simple possession is banned (3). Furthermore, its easier for teens to get marijuana than alcohol (4), despite the former's illegal status. Finally, teens would be less inclined to use drugs because they would become "uncool". Part of the reason drug use is so popular in high schools is because its illegal, which makes teens who use it appear to be "rebels" or "dangerous". This would be nonexistent under a legalization system. So even if you accept that drugs cause criminal behavior, affirming would only bring it down. Third, turn - Legal regulations reduce the price of drugs, thus reducing crime. The Bureau of Justice writes, "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs" (6). This would be reduced by legal companies, who could sell drugs cheaper than dealers because they have superior resources and funding. Fourth, the correlation between drugs and crime is more attributable to social status than the substances. It should be a well known fact that most drug users are poor, and that most prisoners are poor. Poor people/drug users are more likely to commit crimes because they have no incentive to obey laws and maintain their poor quality of life. The Australian Institute of Criminology writes, "Research suggests that drug use and crime involvement have common origins. Factors such as poor social support systems, difficulty in school, membership of deviant peer groups, early contact with government services and a lack of access to economic support systems are common in the backgrounds of both drug users and criminals" (5)Which would indicate that social problems are just as likely to account for drug use/drug crime as their psychoactive effects. Drug use alone cannot be isolated as a cause of crime.Legalization logicCon offers the Mcdonough card which says that legalizing drugs would eliminate drug crime, but legalizing drunk driving would eliminate drunk driving arrests too. The issue is that I'm not advocating legalization of drug possession to reduce arrests for drug possession. I'm advocating legalization to reduce deaths from overdose, AIDS, and drug cartels. I'm not using the logic my opponent thinks I am.My opponent doesn't answer that legalization would destroy drug cartels and that Mexico would follow suit from the US to eliminate their drug ban. This amount to tens of thousands of lives saved. Drugs are badMy opponent argues a few times that drugs are bad and dangerous due to risks of overdose and adulteration that I mentioned. Though he thinks this is grounds to negate, its not. Remember that most overdose deaths (86% of drug fatalities) are directly due to their illegal status. Also, even drugs are inherently bad, so are double quarter pounders and cell phone radiation. Con would have to somehow prove that the status quo is limiting the harms of drugs in order for this point to really matter, and that there is some outweighing benefit to affirming.1. http://www.articlesbase.com...2. http://www.cdc.gov...3. http://drugwarfacts.org...4. http://blog.norml.org...5. http://aic.gov.au...6. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...