The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended.

R1: the drug war has workedHere is an example where the drug war has worked:Specific federal drug legislation and oversight began with the 1914 Harrison Act, the first broad anti-drug law in the United States. Enforcement of this law contributed to a significant decline in narcotic addiction in the United States. Addiction in the United States eventually fell to its lowest level during World War II, when the number of addicts is estimated to have been somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. Many addicts, faced with disappearing supplies, were forced to give up their drug habits. [1]So also you talk about correlation, well what you said is a correlation. Also theory's + logic+ correlation does = causation. Furthermore you say after the legalization of drugs in Alaska users dropped, false:The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. [4]The theory of deterrence:Deterrence is a theory from behavioral psychology about preventing or controlling actions or behavior through fear of punishment or retribution. This theory of criminology is shaping the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries. [2]The drug war causes fear and punishment, lowering users. legalization would raise the amount of users as there would be none of this psychological aspect. Also the reason taxing the drugs would raise users is because there would not be a punishment for drug usage. The reason is above. For your won comment:In 1982, President Ronald Reagan adopted a national drug strategy that took a comprehensive approach consisting of five components: international cooperation, research, strengthened law enforcement, treatment and rehabilitation, and prevention and education. It was remarkably successful: Illegal drug use by young adults dropped more than 50 percent. [3]So can it be won? maybe but drug usage would lower. drugs can still be a health problem if they are illegal, or legal. The source doesn't say it is the problem due to users, it is a problem due to the effects. Also here is proof that the war is working:Illegal drug users: 11 millionTobacco: 66 millionalcohol: 109 million [4]The legal ones have more users, the illegal ones have less. So the illegalization efforts keep the rate low. R2: costIn the year 2000, drug abuse cost American society an estimated $160 billion. [5]got that?Legalization would result in skyrocketing costs that would be paid by American taxpayers and consumers. Legalization would significantly increase drug use and addiction—and all the social costs that go with it. [5]So it would raise taxes therefore lowering income. So your "it helps the eonomy" is false as it would raise taxes even on the psychics. In 2008, marijuana alone was involved in 375,000 emergency room visits. [3]So there are already a lot of people that go to the ER for marijuana use, legalizing it would raise users (as I have proved) therefore logically raising the amount of ER visits. SO of the 4 million marijuana users 400,000 (approx) go to the ER, if you legalize it according to [5] users would double . So there would've 8 million users, so the number of ER visits would double too to 800,000 (approx). SO logically ER x=visits would rise.You link drugs to alcohol. Alcohol and meth cause totally different things. Also alcohol has little taxation, legalization advocates call for massive taxation on drugs, so it would stay violent. For drugs cause violence: A 1997 FBI study of violence against law enforcement officers found that 24 percent of the assailants were under the influence of drugs at the time they attacked the officers and that 72 percent of the assailants had a history of drug law violations. [6]Causes violence. Many scientific studies also support the connection between drug use and crime. One study investigated state prisoners who had five or more convictions. These are hardened criminals. It found that four out of every five of them used drugs regularly. [6]Drugs make you violent making you cause crime. Your alcohol statement: Sometimes the environment you’re drinking in can increase the chances of both becoming aggressive and of being exposed to alcohol-fuelled violence [7]It says alcohol is weak unless taken in large substances in the article, and people only get super affected by alcohol when in noisy bars. A small dose of meth will make you go crazed, a glass of wine wouldn't. Cost (last your argument)700$ over a life span. Let's use 70 years:10$ per year is not significant. In FY 2002, the total federal drug budget was $11.5 billion. [7]Also the funny thing is you say legalization would end law enforcement on drugs, false:Legalizers also fail to mention that, unless drugs are made available to children, law enforcement will still be needed to deal with the sale of drugs to minors. [7]Also legalization would raise costs:Criminal justice costs would likely increase if drugs were legalized. It is quite likely that violent crime would significantly increase with greater accessibility to dangerous drugs — whether the drugs themselves are legal or not. [7]So basically if you are talking costs keep it illegal.R3: right to drugsYou keep using nudity, use a viable example. Tobacco a legal drug. Tobacco can be used almost anywhere, alcohol can be used almost anywhere, so would drugs.I have contested this. Also I have proven ALL drugs cause violence towards people.The Act makes no express exception for drugs used by the terminally ill and no implied exemption is necessary to attain congressional objectives or to avert an unreasonable reading of the terms "safe" and "effective" in 201 (p) (1). Pp. 551-559. [8]A US law act (see source for info) said there is no right to a drug unless truly needed. No constitutional right. Also:Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach was resolved in early 2008 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the appeal. Their refusal left standing the appellate court decision, which said that patients have no right to "a potentially toxic drug with no proven therapeutic benefit." [9]No right to drugs unless needed.R4: drugs and crimeYet, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. [10]Legalization =/= less cartels. (low on room gotta rush this) it wasn't a link just c/p it into google. R5: unintended consequencesI have proven drugs cause crime, more people on drugs would raise crime. Also legalization would not end the cartels *see above* . Also source 10 shows legalization would not shrink the cartels, they would just make crack shops. It also shows the black market would remain similar legal or not. [10]You offered no proof on the corruption of police really. Further more they have less corruption of them, but corruption of politicians to lower the tax, that is worse, legalization is worse corruption wise. conclusion:vote con (no room for conclusion) http://www.justice.gov... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.heritage.org... [3]http://www.justice.gov... [4]http://www.justice.gov... [5]http://www.justice.gov... [6]http://www.justice.gov... [7]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... [8]http://en.wikipedia.org... [9]http://www.justice.gov... [10]