Drugs should be decriminalized

"You probably won't get caught doing drugs" Here's the problem. First of all, thanks to the popularization of crime shows like CSI, it's getting harder and harder for police to catch criminals, granted that the criminals are not idiots. Its the same for Drugs. If you work hard not to get caught, chances are, you won't. But, like murder, if you openly do drugs in the middle of the mall, chances are, you will be caught. In this sense, EVERY crime is the same. For those who think it through, trying not to get caught, chances are they won't. However, this is the part that i do not quite understand about my opponents arguments. My opponent has claimed that "no punishment would really be a very successful deterrent". Yet, the punishment for Drugs, is fairly similar to that of most other crimes. You pay fines and go to jail. Clearly this, as my opponent has stated, is a deterrent to prevent people from stealing, Murdering, and anything else. If you don't care about going to jail, i suppose this would not be a deterrent. But isn't this the same for any other crime? If you don't care about going to jail, how is jail-time a deterrent for Murder? Not all drugs are addictive, and not all drugs are addictive to the same degree, either. Id also like to ask my opponent what he means exactly by "neither are Particularly enforceable". I don't understand that either, as the drug laws have been enforced, which is obvious when we look at the statistics of how many people have been caught and placed in jail. "I know you will say that drugs do too, but notice that drunk driving is illegal, and drinking is not." Ive had a bottle of beer once, and drove, was stopped at a checkpoint, talked to the officer, told him i had one beer, and was left off. Clearly i had been drinking, and now i was driving. Now, why was I let off? The answer is simple. Because, in small quantities, the effects of alcohol are extremely benign. The officer knew this, and I knew this. I can have a drink or two and be completely level-headed. Can the same be said of other Drugs? If a single hit of LSD causes me to hallucinate and become paranoid, is LSD as benign as alcohol? Can i drive? This is the main difference between Alcohol and Drugs. There are benign drugs, sure. Some anti-depressants are a more milder form of Ecstasy, for example, and are not illegal at all. But harder drugs, drugs that cause hallucination and paranoia, drugs that are TAKEN for that very effect, are dangerous. And these drugs are not benign in small quantities. "But we're talking about adults here. The same adults who can smoke and drink." This comment I made was in direct response to your previous comment on how it would boost the economy and help with taxes, if we legalize drugs. Clearly you've missed the point. Whether we use the sale of Fully automatic firearms as an example, is irrespective of the point I was trying to make. There are many things which are restricted, Child and adult alike. The reason why we restrict them is because the potential harms, overwhelming outweigh the benefits. We don't let adults buy and sell nuclear weapons, because there couldn't possibly be a benefit for such a thing to occur, regardless of whether it will boost our economy. What possible benefit is there, for someone who becomes addicted to Cocaine? "But these have to have a prescription from a doctor. To drink alcohol, you just have to be 21." Already explained the difference between Drugs and Alcohol, but here's the short version. Many prescription drugs are affected by different body chemistry, including high and low blood sugar, previous heart problems, etc. The dosage changes with height, weight, age. These things could only be known by your family doctor. Alcohol, on the other hand, will not change its effect regardless of whatever previous condition you might have. There only about 1300-1400 deaths directly attributed to alcohol poisoning(1), yet there are a whopping 20,000 people die from prescription drug overdoses alone.(2) "Shall I go do field research before I finish this debate?" It seems like common sense to me. I mean, I can't find a reason why a drug cartel would kill their loyal customers who are addicted to their drugs, unless the customer is refusing to pay. I didn't twist anything. You made a nonsensical point, and i called you out on it. If you are also unaware of what's happening and who is getting killed in Mexico by the drug wars, i suggest you refrain from making absurd claims like "Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you". "How much do we care about profitability?" You're kidding me, right? "Alternatively, we could give it to private businesses " How would the outcome differ? If anything, private businesses would care MORE about profitability, and therefore increase their prices BEYOND that of what the government would sell. I think your point has failed here. "it's necessary to run background checks and get licenses and stuff" This argument fails when you consider how easy it is to get, for example, long guns and handguns. In some states such as Alabama, Long guns require no background checks, and no licenses if you are not carrying the weapon around. "The government doesn't exist to stop our bad habits, so it doesn't really matter how bad it is for you." Actually, yes, the government does exist to stop us from causing potential harm to ourselves. Its why the FDA exists. Why do you think the FDA forces drug companies to prove that their product is SAFE, before placing them on shelves? "Now, tell me, how many cigarette smokers are social smokers who are not addicted?" Great. Now i get to tell you the difference between Cigarettes and Cocaine. Can you overdose on cigarettes? Plain and simple. And BTW, it was the government who pushed the bill, requiring ALL cigarette packages to label their product as potentially causing cancer. "Still, how many people already die of accidental (or, perhaps, not accidental) overdoses? This is really not very different." Boy, will your face be red when you read my arguments... "It's proven that smoking puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc., but it's legal." Again, this is the difference. You could never overdose on fatty foods, nor eating fatty foods all your life does not necessarily mean you will die of heart attacks. The same doesn't go for Drugs. You could overdose very VERY easily on drugs, yet you could eat and eat mcdonalds until your stomach is about to burst and STILL not die of a heart attack.(3) "How does this negate the resolution?" It negates your point about police officers. "We can legalize anything with restrictions and regulations. Point completely negated." This is what we currently have, though. What do you think prescription drugs are? What do you think Vicodin, Morphine, Oxycontin, LSD, Diazepam, and Ketamine, are? These are ALL drugs that HAVE restrictions AND are regulated. These are what we CALL PRESCRIPTION drugs. This isn't at all what you are trying to advocate. What you are trying to advocate, is essentially ONE restriction, ONE regulation, which is nicely summed up in the next sentence: "Only adults can buy them. They have to be tested and approved." Tested and approved for what, exactly? In the end, it comes down to two criterions: -The potential to abuse the substance -The potential harm of the substance For aclohol, both criterions are fairly low. For cigs, one is high but the other is low. For Drugs, BOTH are high. Sources 1. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... 2. http://www.cdc.gov... 3. http://news.injuryboard.com...