End Prohibition, Drugs Become Public Health Issue

Thank you for the reply, I would like to apologise for the time it has taken me to get back to you. My opponent has criticised the link I posted on the basis that, "This is not a scientific article, or an article even referenced itself. It is titled "Drug 'doubles mental health risk'" which implies a previous risk already existed not having to do with drugs. It also uses words such as "probably" and refers to smoking a "drug" which is vague. The article is not a valid reference in order to back up my opponents claim for it does not even specific the study using legal or illegal drugs to do it's study." 1: Though I accept it is not in itself a scientific article, it does reference a scientific study. 2: I do understand my opponents point with regards the doubling of mental health risk. 3: The article does not merely state that Cannabis ‘probably' causes mental health problems. But makes several specific and firm claims as to its health effects. 4: The article mentions cannabis 12 times, nearly once a paragraph, and fails to specifically mention any other drug. I do not see how the article can be considered at all vague. However that said I shall provide a proper scientific study into the effects of Cannabis and mental health. http://arno.uvt.nl... I would to draw my opponents attention to, the conclusions on page 28. Though it does supply the caveat that the damage only clear in the case of cannabis abuse (as opposed to infrequent use) it does prove the link and it should also be remembered that this is possibly the most benign of the drugs that my opponents wishes to see legalised (or decriminalised). My opponent replies that, "Next, my opponent argues that drugs do not just affect the user, but the liberties and quality of life of others, and therefore should remain a criminal issue. This claim is baseless on the terms of their already being legal drugs which are exponentially more detrimental to the users health, and society. For example, tobacco is legal and kills more people each year than each scheduled drug combined. Also, the effects of smoking harms surrounding people, and can kill them. " Though this is insightful it is not logically relevant to the debate. Because something that is harmful is legal, it does not follow that all harmful illegal substances should be made legal. My opponent argues with regards drugs and crimes that "correlation does not prove causation, and his argument actually falls onto my side. If drug addicts commit crimes because they're trying to fund their habits," I counter this on the basis that if drug addict is unable to legally fund his addiction due to the debilitation and intoxication his drug causes, he will resort to crime. "Next, my opponent argues legalization of current illegal drugs would increase illegal drug users. This does not make sense, for it would no longer be a criminal act." This is a misunderstanding,, The illegality is a reference to the aforementioned attempts to illegally gain money for what would now be a legal drug. The numbers of such people would logically increase under my opponents suggestion. My opponent argues that, "The United States alone pays over 40 billion dollars a year to maintain it's prohibition of illegal drugs. In fact, that's 40 billion dollars to only maintain the prohibition of one drug; that is cannabis." I would like my opponent to provide a link for this figure, but I do not doubt the overall point that the ‘war on drugs' is very expensive and imperfect. My counter-argument is as follows, Given that cannabis use has been shown by many studies to increase the chances of developing schizophrenia let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is the father of a teenager, You have two choices, you can raise your teenager in a society where he may never be offered cannabis, where he may find difficulty in purchasing it, where he may smoke it sporadically before deciding to grow. This is the current situation. Or you can raise your teenager in a society where it is sold openly and cheaply in the shops and he can smoke as much as he could ever desire without any limits on this personal whims. This would be the ramifications of my opponents choice. Also let us remember that this is not simply about Cannabis, this is about all currently illegal drugs. Cocaine, heroin, examine. Can this substances logically be treated in the same context as say tobacco? With regards my counter-argument/defence of mandatory treatment my opponent states that, "Because you did not define what an abuser is, it is implied all users of illegal drugs are abusers, and therefore should be required to receive treatment, and stay in it. This would mean nearly half the population of the United States should be in treatment," 1: The onus was on my opponent to define such terms, I have been good in not attempting a pedantic or semantic case as I generally do not approve of such tactics. 2: The current system employs mandatory drug treatment, at no point has anyone suggested or come close to achieving the incarceration for treatment of half of the population. My continues with, "I further argue coercion is subjective, and mandatory anything does not encourage participation and is a poor form of coercion. The current recidivism rates for prisons and treatment centres reflects this." But the issue is that legalisation and voluntary treatment would in no way increase the success rate of treatment, decrease the number of drug users/abusers, alter the negative consequences of the drugs themselves and nor ultimately lower the crime rate. My opponent argues that an imperfect system be replaced by one that would be even worse in every conceivable regard. I defence of the current system I stated that, -drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, (to my opponents alternative). My opponent stated that following contentions, 1: "They are not removed for society," But that is the definition of a prison, its primary function. 2: "Also, drugs can't even be kept out of prisons." True, but my opponent must demonstrate that this limited supply is worse for society than his proposed unrestricted access. Again my opponent appears to be suggesting replacing an imperfect system with one that would be even worse. 3: "Furthermore, you insinuate receiving treatment is punishment, which if true would be counter-productive for the goal would be for the 'victim' to succeed." I made no such insinuation, treatment is currently required as part of sentencing. This implies that this part of the sentence is not for punishment but for rehabilitation. My opponent requested that, "Please clarify your argument here. Citizens currently pay tax dollars which go towards treatment centres." To clarify my argument Though this is true, my opponent essentially argues that society should go a step further, ignoring the use of these harmful substances, enduring the resultant massive crime wave and yet also spending more money (as the number of centres will need to be increased) so that drug addicts can check in when they feel like it, and receive medical care that other Americans have to actually work for (or go without). This is amoral. With regards the racial disparity in drug enforcement my opponent offers this link, http://www.prohibitioncosts.org...; However the link only references the economic benefits of legalising the Cannabis trade. I refute it because it ignores the true cost in terms of health and crime and because it fails to address the issue of harder drugs. My opponent has not addressed my criticisms of his proposed drug education, nor has defended his flawed analogy with regards the past alcohol prohibition to the modern 'heroin prohibition'.