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

Rebut: Gonzales v Raich held that "the power of Congress to regulate local activities as part of a "class of activities" that substantially affect interstate commerce was "well established." The Court continued holding that "doctor-prescribed marijuana has a significant impact on…the supply and demand for black market marijuana, which was…within the power of the federal government to regulate." Congress has the power to regulate local activities that impact the supply and demand for black market drugs. Congress, under the Supreme Court, has the power to regulate ANY activities that affect interstate commerce. (1) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Scalia, held "Congress has the power to regulate "intrastate activities that do not…substantially affect interstate commerce, if necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective." Because marijuana is a "fungible commodity," Congress power to control interstate drug trafficking provides sufficient basis to criminalize smoking home-grown weed pursuant to a doctor's prescription" so long as such activities are regulated "in connection with a more comprehensive scheme of regulation." (2) The War on Drugs is constitutional. 1.Unhealthy My opponent's opposition here is the United States government does not have the role to protect people from bad choices. Civil servants take an oath to protect and defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Drugs and alcohol represent a domestic enemy. Government ensures that we are safe. When delegating power to a central authority, the people are giving up their right of self defense. Under the social contract, one gives up certain rights to form a stable society, one of your duties as being a member of society is to, in certain cases, give up your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature, when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to defend the community…to risk or sacrifice one's life, liberty, or property if such defense should require it" (4). Widespread drug use and drug production destabilizes society, "the emergence of a drug economy can result in the destabilization of the state, the political system, the economy and civil society." (5) To preserve society, under the social contract, one MUST be willing to give up their right to harm themselves for the preservation of society. Either that, or drug users must remove themselves from society. Since many people are unwilling to perform their societal duty; the government holds the responsibility of preserving society and illegalizing drugs to preserve the state, which, in the end, benefits all of us. I would like to point out my opponent completely dropped all of the points I made showing how marijuana and other drugs are extremely harmful. They came from scientists who have worked with these drugs. I also would like to point out how my opponent is simply saying just because X and Y are legal A, B, C, etc. should be legal to. All have harmful side effects, "60 percent of schizophrenic patients used non-prescription psychoactive drugs…Alcohol has an addiction rate of 10 percent, whereas cocaine has an addiction rate as high as 75 percent…marijuana smoke is as irritating as tobacco smoke" (3). They both are dangerous. So, why should we legalize more dangerous substances? 2. Decreased use (plus legal = increased use) "My opponent is using many data points that are great lengths of time apart…" I showed how the drug policy in the Clinton era (from 1992 to 2000) increased in children aged 12 - 17. Is my opponent attempting to argue the fact that such a drastic drop in drug interdiction spending would not have an effect on drug use? Furthermore, I would like to point out, my opponent has provided no counter claims, simply saying that something which directly affects drug supply would not affect drug use is ridiculous. The points I provided were a high point (14.1%) and a low point (8.7%). So, all other data points would be between 14.1% and 8.7%, thus, we can naturally assume, drug use is trending downwards. Once again, is my opponent suggesting policy which directly deals with drug use, would not affect drug use? I already provided worldwide statistics. "when it comes to prohibition, we don't have all the facts" I gave facts. They have not been refuted. Deaths due to alcohol and alcohol use were down. I provided a source, which contained information from a book by Dr. Mark Gold. "legalization in other countries…" 1) different countries have different cultures. Portuguese culture is radically different from American culture so we cannot use this as definitive proof. 2) Portugal never legalized, they merely decriminalized. This would be a reform in the War on Drugs, not an end of the War on Drugs. Thus, it is outside the scope of this debate. 3. Crime Even if legalization ends external crime (cartels) internal crime will still exist. As for DUIs, my opponent, concedes this point and says it does not affect driving but, according to the LA Times "People who smoke marijuana within a few hours of getting behind the wheel may be almost twice as likely to cause an accident" (6) Now, let's say you somehow end the cartels "the Justice Department reports that most inmates (77.4 percent male and 83.6 percent female) have a drug history and the majority were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their current offense…12 percent of all violent offenses and 24.4 percent of all property offenses were drug-money motivated" (3). It is clear that unless the government gives out free drugs, people will still commit crimes to gain access to these drugs. And even then, "Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens" (3). My opponent goes on to say, "The legalization itself will drop prices from the inflated black market prices, and the tax would not fully counteract that drop". 1) Prove it. How does my opponent know the taxation will not counteract the drop? They simply cannot. 2) The "legalization of drugs will cost society between $140-210 billion a year…the societal cost of substance abuse…$238 billion…insurance companies would pass on accident expenses" (3). Socially, it will cost much, much more to legalize. "The revenue from such taxation [will not] offset the social and medical costs these illicit drugs would impose" (3). Will taxes be raised to counteract? My opponent's argument is unfounded. You are also going to increase societal costs. "Patrick Murphy's quote" I ask my opponent to provide some source backing up their claims. And to also show exactly how my arguments prove him wrong. One cannot not definitively know the connection between alcohol and abuse "further research is needed." (7) Mr. Murphy was referring to ILLEGAL DRUGS (8). 4.Treaties It is not unconstitutional. See above arguments. 5.Prison Population My opponent has provided no basis that prices will drop. And it is irrelevant what they were using as my opponent is advocating blanket legalization. My point still stands, "only 2 percent of those in federal prisons were convicted of pure drug possession. They generally committed other and violent crimes to earn a sentence" (3). People are not just in jail for using drugs. My opponent still has provided no basis that there would be lower costs and thus, lower crimes. 6. Trafficking As I quoted above, "if drugs were legalized some restrictions still would be necessary…restricting the sale of legalized drugs to minors, pregnant women, police, military, pilots and prisoners…would still provide a black market niche" (3). You are going to have excluded groups, the cartels will be active. My opponent has failed to provide a source for many of his arguments here. NEED MORE ROOM!