The United States Should End the War on Drugs

Individuals participate in society because it is in the best interests of all who participate. Left to their own device, people are selfish, cruel, and miserable. Many people simply lack the logic and proper ability to reason to make effective choices even if all the required evidence, materials and information is available to them. In a hands-off approach to society, these people are effectively destined to lead miserable and unfulfilled lives solely because they are born and raised in an environment in which their nature is to fail. Stating that it is immoral for government to interfere in the lives of individuals does not make it fact. It is an assertion. Defining government any way you wish will obviously allow any moral claims as to the proper role of government to be true by definition. Clearly I can do the same in saying that people of a nation have an implicit social contract with the government, the purpose of which is to provide the maximum amount of happiness to the most people. The first claim that my opponent makes is that the most commonly abused drugs are "legal prescription drugs". This is a patently false an very misleading statement. Pro's source clearly states that 20% of US citizens have used some kind of prescription medication for non medical reasons. This includes people who have used said medication only one time. Using this same criteria, we find that Marijuana is more than twice as popular as prescription drugs [1], while alcohol and tobacco are almost four times as popular[2][3]. My opponent seems to limit her understanding of the War on Drugs to the legislative and educational effects of specific policies that are included within the War on Drugs. By making this mistake, she makes a clear and confusing contradiction. She argues that: :the repercussions of said drugs are 99% less harmful than the drugs that are legal. despite the fact that she must know that illegal drugs are used far less than legal drugs. A drug such as morphine or Heroin is effectively harmless in comparison to something such as alcohol. In addition to being less harmful, morphia is possible to directly substitute for alcohol in even extreme cases of alcohol obsession[4]. However, despite their relative safety, almost as few as .6% Americans use opiates[10], while over 50% of the population regularly uses alcohol. How can you possibly explain this contradiction? Why would Americans use a substance that is obviously more harmful at a rate that is much higher than than a drug that is much safer and more pleasant? The answer is that the War on Drugs is not simply the sum of legislation and programs regarding drug use and distribution. It is a state of mind. It's a perspective that allows one to hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs without question or doubt. The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes. They also KNOW that virtually identical drugs are perfectly harmless when "prescribed" or "prescribable" by a doctor. In essence, the system itself is it's own ultimate justification. How can you honestly trust a person to make rational health decisions for themselves when they openly admit that their beliefs directly contradict with the most basic rules of logic? Surely one would never argue that a child should be given the opportunity to make negative life altering decisions. This is because they lack the innate ability of rationality that we associate that with adulthood. However, what few want to admit is that rationality does not exist in a static state. Rather, rationality is measured on a sliding scale, with no true reference point. Most adults, while arguably more rational than children, need to their behavior regulated lest the slip into a chain of self destructive behavior. While Pro may be quick to point out that the majority of people are responsible enough to regulate their own behavior, the evidence clearly shows this to be false. The overwhelming majority of Americans have some type of degrading vice, whether it be the inability to control their eating, substance abuse, or any other emotional disorder. Now, Pro may be inclined to argue that such restrictions on human behavior are severe intrusions on freedom. However, the concept of freedom is arbitrary. There is no evidence that such a thing as free will exists; people are slaves to their own passions and their own nature. By strictly regulating human behavior, we are able to substitute the horrors of human nature (enslavement) for the lesser burden of societal codes. Even if one's natural state is changed by government, there is no reason to reject this intrusion if one clearly benefits from this "intrusion". Even if you regard it as slavery, there is no reason to not choose the more kind of two masters if no other choices are present. As for the War on Drugs itself, obvious changes need to be made. Much more power needs to be given to the federal government to establish full police power to truly enforce prohibition. One of the reasons why alcohol (and current) prohibitions do not work as well as they could is that the federal government relies on states to enforce the law by proxy. In the current system, States have a conflict of interest when it comes to enforcing drug laws. They have a variety of other important aspects of law enforcement to attend to, and suppressing drug use does not yield immediate benefits. During prohibition, as it is now, resulted in a half hearted enforcement of drug laws. This has shown to be effective in countries that have taken a serious stance as far as prohibiting specific substances such as alcohol[9]. Currently we are focused primarily on the least harmful of substances. Rather, we should focus most of our efforts on the most dangerous of drugs, such as smoked tobacco, alcohol, and methamphetamine. This can be accomplished by slowly reversing the perceived dangers of legal drugs. By releasing a new wave of propaganda and social indoctrination, we can make people understand that the (real) most harmful drugs should be the least socially acceptable, while retaining the illegal status (seeing as all but marijuana are currently at unprecedentedly low levels as it is). There is already a massive movement to criminalize tobacco and once that is accomplished, Alcohol companies can take on the role as the new Evil Villain. Studies showing that alcohol being more dangerous than Heroin and Cocaine will produce cries of moral outrage and condemnation of the companies that have defended and encouraged such horrible concoctions. The mentality of an invisible War on Drugs has showed itself to be a useful tool for manipulating the behavior of society. To abandon it now will be to have wasted nearly a century of social engineering and experimentation. We've proved beyond a doubt that through social manipulation, use of certain drugs can be pushed into nearly non existence despite their relative safety and medical history. While prohibition has had marginal effects already, imagine how much of a difference can be made by prohibiting drugs that are truly are the most dangerous? 1. http://www.time.com... 2. http://www.ok.gov... 3. http://rileychildrenshospital.com... 4. http://books.google.com... 5. http://www.drugpolicy.org... 6. http://www.nytimes.com... 7. http://pewresearch.org... 8. http://www.scrippsnews.com... 9. http://en.wikipedia.org... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org...