All drugs should be legal.

My opponent has broken the rules by attacking my rebuttal from round 3 which is supposed to take place on round 4. He was supposed to attack my round 2 arguments. I shall carry on despite this and defend my rebuttal while also attacking his rebuttal. In order to make the debate even do NOT attack or defend yourself from anything, I state in THIS round (round 4) besides my clarification for the second paragraph. "I'm sorry, but a drug addict who neglects or abuses thier children is not "unintentionally abus(ing)" thier children, they're just abusing them, and no one has the right to do that" I have never stated this in my rebuttal from round two nor has it been stated in round 2. In response to the rest of my opponents first paragraph: I believe you missed the point I was trying to make. Obviously just because you are educated on the effects of drugs that doesn't mean you won't become addicted. I was stating that because of the education addiction is far less likely than during the 1850"s. My argument is not whether drugs are safe, it's whether they should be legalized. In the second part of your paragraph, you state " I think my opponent is trying to claim that our society is safe from mass addiction because we're educated on the adverse effects of drugs" which was my argument, partially. I was stating that the chance of a mass addiction to that extent and just a mass addiction, in general, is very unlikely to be caused BY legalization or even increased. It's also far more unlikely to happen because we are aware of the negative effects unlike the Chinese in the 1850"s. My proof was Portugal. In response to my opponent's second paragraph (You may attack this): I was simply stating that once you are legally an adult, you do not need to do what your parents want. Therefore, there should be no law made to restrain an adults life in favor of her/his parents regardless of their feelings. Once you are an adult you are legally unbound from your parents. It does not matter if your parents approve of what you do. You should still be able to do it whether or not they approve. I'm aware that the majority of parents would be sad if you became a heroin addict but the majority of parents would also be sad if you became homeless. That doesn't mean being homeless should be illegal. In response to my opponent's final paragraph: First, I'm curious as to what state you live in because I've never heard of any American state that has those policies. Very intriguing, but of course you don't need too, I respect your privacy. Anyways, by legalizing drug use drug policy would be removed from law enforcement right away and replaced by the health sector (If I could pick). Everything you've mentions that they did would happen when drugs were legalized but to a larger extent and without drug vans. Also, Ive stated that drugs would have a consumer tax which would eliminate the need for an increased income tax. Even if the math doesn't add up your taxes would increase by such an insignificant rate it would not affect you at all. You also provided no sources so I'm unsure as to how much money was invested in these programs but I'd assume very little since I found nothing about it on the web. Also, we would need no extra drug treatment centers as legalization is not connected to increased amounts of drug use. Okay, time for my wrap-up. I believe you should vote for me because I provided data to back up my statements along with using sources. That"s about it since it's up to the voters to decide whose arguments were superior. Remember, whether you agreed with my opponent or me, make sure to vote for who you think had a stronger argument. Not who you agreed with. I wish my opponent luck for when the voting commences. Thank you again for accepting to debate me. I certainly found this interesting and enjoyed it. :)