Drug Legalization

Before I start, I would like to ask my opponent "What makes marijuana different from other drugs? Refutations 1A. Money and Lives 10 billion a year is still a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere or better yet not at all. I will admit that the cost in US lives is suspect, though it is still high. He personally knew one cop who was killed, and mentions another case where drug dealers burned a mom and her 5 children to death. In addition, you ignored the 23,000 deaths in Mexico because of the drug war. Is a government nursemaid forcing everyone to do what they want you to do really worth 23,000 deaths a year? 1B. Society The money will largely go away. Why would gangs be the ones selling drugs if there are legal venues with quality control and little danger? It is a rare man who prefers to buy his drugs from a gang rather than a legal store that isn't notorious for violence and crime. You bring up an interesting claim that drug dealers will kill everyone who is selling drugs. However, that is not the case. The only reason most people buy drugs from gangs is that it is the only option. With legal options open, gangs would in effect have to become a legal operation. Killing everyone wouldn't work, as the government would intervene and you would have to go underground, thus losing vast amounts of profit. Perhaps it is best to look at a historical precedent. During prohibition, the murder rate spiked up from 1920-1934 (Prohibition years). However, right after Prohibition was ended (1933) the murder rate quickly dropped[1]. In addition, the murder rate remained low until the 1970s-1990s, when drug prohibition was more strictly enforced. I find this quote interesting "As such, violence will continue and likely go up, since the drug dealers no longer need to hide." They don't need to hide murder? Legalizing drugs does not mean legalizing murder. If anything, violence would go down. You state that the actual figure is 13%. I will accept that, as that number is still unacceptable. We are, in essence, imprisoning people because we decided that we know how to run your life better than you actually do, and we don't care if they disagree. 2. Success You claim that since it addresses marijuana, it can be ignored? I do not agree with that. If we prohibit marijuana and can only change usage by less than 5%, how can we expect to change cocaine usage by any substantial amount either? Even though you support marijuana legalization, it still shows that prohibiting something doesn't really change anything. There may be more effective ways of fighting drugs. Whether or not that is something to be desired is another thing. 3. Morality I admit that it was a bit of a mistake to say that we are slaves of the government. I will address your points then restate my main points on morals. I support people's ability to own their property. If you are on their property, then they have a right to kick you off. Similarly, if you sign a contract in which it states "You cannot drink on the job" then you can't drink on the job. If you break that contract, then you lose your job. If your employer tells you to not go to work high, then you can still go to work high. You will just lose your job. If you don't like those conditions, then you can find a different job. In addition, employers do not attempt to rule your private life. However, with the government, you do not sign a contract. They forewarn you, but if you don't like the conditions, you can't "quit" your country. If you break that, they force you to give them money and lock you up, even though you never signed a contract. You have no say in the matter. And they do attempt to rule your private life. Parents can tell their kids what and what not to do, as long as they don't use violence or steal their money. They can take away things that they give to you away (i.e. dinner, the computer, etc.). Parents will generally stop giving, not take your stuff and lock you up. And then there is the issue that the government is not your parents, your parents are your parents. The parent is generally supposed to raise you. The government is supposed to protect you, not be a nursemaid who steals your stuff if you break rules. 3A. Restating morality. First off, can we truly say that we own ourselves if the government controls what we can ingest? Isn't it the government's job to protect us, not to be our nursemaid and master? Drug prohibition is one small group thinking they know what is best, and then forcing everyone else to follow it, whether or not they agree with it. How is it and why is it that a small group of people is able to decide what is good, and then force the rest of the society to follow suit? This is a textbook example of 51% ruling over 49%. 4. Riskiness of drugs. You seem to be saying that you do not support people taking drugs because they may become high and begin driving. If that is the case, then find people driving while high and punish them, not ban drugs altogether. Banning drugs to stop driving while high makes no sense, just like banning alcohol to stop drunk driving makes no sense. Instead of banning alcohol, ban drunk driving. 5. Does money matter? The cost in dollars matters. I would not support legalizing homicide because it costs money, because homicide affects others. Spending billions to force people to ingest what you think is good and prohibiting what you think isn't good wastes the money, because you do not prevent harm to others. 6. Drugs and crime. You say that drugs are bad because more drug users commit crimes. First off, this is a classic example of correlation and causation. Does being high cause you to murder someone, or is it that people who get high also are more likely to be criminals? Black people commit more crimes, but that doesn't mean that their skin color tells them to commit crime. It may be a simple case of correlation. You may argue that while high, you are more likely to commit crimes. This is likely, but so what? Numerous things make you more likely to commit crimes: epinephrine, alcohol, dopamine, greed, pride, lust, hate, etc. Why should we ban one of the many things that increase the likelihood of crimes without banning everything else? Conclusion Prohibiting drugs is an affront on freedom where a certain group of people decides what is good for you, and then force you to follow through with it, whether or not you like it. It costs a lot of money and lives, and has little success. In addition, it is just plain wrong. Thank you Sources [1] http://eh.net...