The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!

The fact that you pointed out grammar errors was pretty Nazi, but it doesn't really matter to me very much. The red line didn't appear under addicts or support, so I didn't know they were spelled wrong. I also didn't say you were a "bad person" but I guess you may have perceived that. I have done a few debates about drugs being bad, but you are different than the others. You brought up points that others wouldn't do, and made sure to rebuttal everything I said. I do think that you have done better than most debaters on this topic that I have debated with, and quite significantly too. Now, let's get to it! Rebuttal/clarification 1."First of all, I would like to address the source that you gave. I was unable to find the info that you were referring to, despite searching for it for awhile. Could you please give me the specific link to it in your next speech? " I kid you not, but the link had a lot of good statistics, and I clicked on it, but it didn't bring me to the exact website I cited. I apologize for the mistake, so here is the true link to my actual source. http://www.drugfree.org... . I have no idea why my last source didn't work, and this technically not a rebuttal so I will now get into that part of the debate. Rebuttal 2." Also, I would like to quote you on one of your statements: "Most drug addicts become addicted from stress, insecurity, and especially peer pressure." Actually, the thing that makes them addicted is the levels of dopamine in their body, not stress or that other stuff. Just saying." I may have used the incorrect terminology of "peer pressure". A better term would be peer influence. The peers are not directly pressuring, but may be influencing the other person to do so. This article is all about peer influence on children, and when you start drugs young (which is becoming more common) the effects and addiction become stronger. It also covers why children will be so much more susceptible to influence because of developing social connections. http://www.eurekalert.org... . I read your article on dopamine, and it makes a lot of sense. Although, it only really covers the topic of how addictions are kept, and how they worsen over time. I may have not been clear in stating that peer pressure/influence can help start an addiction. I did not include the start part, so my apologies for that. And the article backs up my claims on insecurity and stress starting addictions, but not about adding to a current addiction. That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up. Rebuttal 3." Also, the source that you mentioned isn't an article, it's a video. Videos? Ain't nobody got time for that." My source was not the video, it was the entire website. You had to sort of look around, and I didn't want to direct you to a certain page, because I wanted you to look at the entire website. You should definitely look it over, because the site gives lots of information on how smoking is very harmful to society and the environment. And the video was helpful in a way, so ain't nobody got time for that rebuttal of yours! Rebuttal 4." On the bottom of every cigarette pack, there is a warning which explains the risks of doing drugs.(Not knowing from experience, of course) The "millions of people" that you talk about know the risks, so it's not the dealer's fault. You might as well blame the government for not shutting down major brands of drugs." It may not be the dealer's entire fault, but the business is still immoral and meant for crooks. The people still may know the facts, but as many people will say experience and understanding is much more vital than facts and knowledge. These new smokers don't have the experience (just like you said yourself, so this contradicts your argument), so they are more likely to fall into the pit trap these capitalists make to gain profit. You can't ignore the statistics, and whether it is the consumer's or producer's faults it is still a very horrible problem. Use the analogy of taking the position of the head of one of these tobacco and alcohol companies. You could see how your products are killing so many people, and it happens no matter whose fault it is. The drug business is morally wrong, and is harmful no matter who takes the blame. I do believe that governments should outright ban it, but that does not relate to the debate so I didn't mention it. Rebuttal 5." "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy." (Source:http://www.cdc.gov......) This is the label on the bottom of the cigarette pack. It is not the drug's fault for all the crime and deaths caused across the world. It is the consciousness of the drug addicts fault, because they are the ones who do it." I have decided to use evidence from your own cited article to support my debate. (The irony!) "Warning labels on cigarette packages in the United States are weaker and less prominent than those of many other countries" (http://www.cdc.gov... ). This is telling us that the labels are less prominent than other countries. This may help contribute to bad decisions by smokers to smoke, because they are not given the FULL statistics. I bet if customers had to view a website, such the one I cited earlier (but you didn't read all parts of the website), than they would be more likely to reconsider smoking or try to quit. Here is the link to the same website, (the video is not the main part, so look at the top bar with the "The Problem" tab) http://tobaccofreeca.com... . If you have looked at the problem section, than you will see that they back my arguments. If you are wondering why I have mentioned smoking a lot, it is because it is an example. A lot of similar and different problems arise with other not so legal drugs. My argument points: I will state this, drugs are harmful to society because they are non-beneficial and they simply hurt people. I don't see any websites saying "drugs don't hurt you at all!" or "drugs can be good for your health". The only people who I think are implying these statements are drug dealers and companies. They simply don't care about human health. A lot of people don't realize that deadly drugs are so bad for our health, and why it is immoral to distribute them when knowing the health risks. I don't understand why that isn't so obvious to a lot of people (especially liberals). I will give you a basic review: 1). Drugs hurt people's health and self esteem. they also kill people 2). Everyone knows this, INCLUDING the drug dealers and companies. The new druggies don't have the experience. 3). If the companies know they kill and hurt people, then it is very immoral and inhumane to exploit people for profit. Even if the druggies agree and know the facts, they are still be hurt physically and emotionally for PROFIT! It is basically the exact same thing as people being payed for torturing human beings, even if the people agreed to the torture. If anyone thinks it is okay to make a profit of of hurting people, than they are a chauvinistic pig. I will leave my statement at this. If I sound harsh, than you're getting the idea. I am only speaking the bare bone honest truth. Signing off