"Marijuana, Cocaine and even Heroin Should be Legalized." -Ron Paul

First, I want to recap, respond to PRO"s assertions and then move on to some conclusions. PRO states :: Let's keep this to only to the philosophical basis for :: the role of government in people's lives - :: not about the impact of drug use, why drugs are bad, etc. :: That drug use is harmful to the body is not in dispute. :: The issue of contention for this debate is whether the :: government has a right to restrict what you put in your body. SO PRO agrees that drug use is harmful individually. PRO agrees that drugs are bad for society as a whole. PRO wants the debate to focus on the role of government. Here is my framework The role of government is to work for the greatest good of the people. One tool of good government is to pass laws to encourage the greatest good. Slavery is bad. Freedom is good. Anarchy is bad. Between the extremes of repressive government and anarchy there is a sweet spot we aim for with the most freedoms and the least damage FOR THE GREATEST GOOD. Governments have chosen to make marijuana, cocaine and heroin illegal for good reason. These drugs as they do more harm than good. They should continue to be controlled substances and highly restricted by wise government. I want to make clear the idea that the role of government includes limiting freedoms when people choose actions that damage individuals or society as a whole. Now, PRO wants to convince us that . . . (from round three) "Drug use does not necessarily have an impact on society at large, positive or negative." There are two problems with this line of reasoning. 1. It I outside the stated bounds of this debate (From round 1 and acceptance) 2. It is clearly wrong. "Drug abuse costs the United States economy hundreds of billions of dollars in increased health care costs, crime, and lost productivity." - http://www.drugabuse.gov... More later, but PRO is trying to argue a point he requested we not bring up. :: Let's keep this to only to the philosophical basis for :: the role of government in people's lives - :: not about the impact of drug use, why drugs are bad, etc. Let me respond to PRO"s arguments. :: CON's principle concern is the impact that he believes drug use has on society at large, :: and because of that societal impact, legislation is necessary to countermand that bad :: outcome in defense of the common good. This is a fair assessment of part of my position. The PRO suggests "Drug use does not necessarily have an impact on society at large, positive or negative. " The facts say drugs are bad. They cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year in social cost. They do far more harm than good. Unregulated use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin is bad for the health of individuals or society. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin have a huge impact. Not only is there the daily cost in health care, lost productivity and associated crime, but there is the long term cost of people who should be productive citizens, but are now a drain on the legal and social services of our country. The American Journal of Public Health comes to the following conclusion in an issue focusing on harm reduction: "It is now abundantly clear that the nonmedical use of psychoactive drugs is one of the major causes of health problems in the United States, as is reflected in the physiological effects of the drugs (overdoses and alcohol cirrhosis), behavior while under the influence of drugs (drunken driving and domestic violence), and consequences inherent in drug administration (carcinogens, HIV and other serious infections transmitted through shared injection equipment)" [D C Des Jarlais. Harm reduction--a framework for incorporating science into drug policy. American Journal of Public Health January 1995: Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 10-12.] http://ajph.aphapublications.org... PRO suggests a mythical drug user, not connected to society, in his/her home until all effects from drug use have passed. This is not realistic. No one started taking drugs with the idea that they would die of an overdose or become a life long resident of a psychiatric ward. This mythical "it doesn"t hurt anybody" idea IS AT THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. A user who does not get hooked, and quits before much permanent damage happens is rare. They are NOT representative of the average drug user. It is not the job of government (or police or hospitals) to deal with this mythical creature. They deal with the real results of recreational drug use AND ARE STRONG SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL SANCTIONS. PRO states "Drug use is absolutely, and unavoidably an individual choice." This is incorrect. It is (currently) an illegal action with huge social and medical costs. PRO might wish it was an individual choice, but wiser people have seen the need to pass laws that limit the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Society has chosen to make these laws even more strict through the years. - see the history of drug laws here. http://facultypages.morris.umn.edu... NOTE - This is a part of the history of US drug legislation. It is the history of governments doing the hard work of enacting legislation in response to real problems. We keep making laws to restrict drug use because it keeps on bringing new problems that "we the people", want legislation against. Up to 1900 there were no "Federal laws governing use or distribution of any drug (medicinal or recreational). Substances such as heroin, morphine, and cocaine are readily available and sold as part of "patent" medicines to cure everything from menstrual cramps to toothaches in children." In 1906 the Food and Drug act was passed (primarily a labeling law) to make "patent medicines" label their ingredients. Any items could be sold as long as they were labeled properly. From 1907 to 1919, 39 states enacted prohibitions against alcohol. 64% of Americans lived in "dry" territory. In 1914 the Harrison Tax Act was enacted to deal with "narcotics." Keeping in line with the view of the Federal government's role in interstate commerce. Under the act, physicians were able to "minister to patients" and "...drugs obtained by addicts were to be secured through registered physicians." Coca and cocaine were inappropriately identified in this Act as narcotics. The 18th Amendment (Volstead Act) of 1920 crossed the line from taxation to high levels of enforcement. Two times as many drug (opiates and cocaine) arrests as for alcohol during this time." I post this brief history to show that LEGISLATION COMES IN RESPONSE TO A NEED Through our history we have had to pass more and more legislation against drugs. LEGISLATION REFLECTS PUBLIC OPINION Public opinion is changing regarding marijuana. We may need to changes some of our current legislation to meet the desires of public opinion. I like the idea PRO suggests of making drug users responsible for the cost of their actions. I want my portion of the hundred billion spent every year on the medical and social cost of drug abuse. PRO states "people use drugs anyway, whether they are legal or illegal" This is a part of his reasoning for removing the laws restricting drug use. Legislation has been shown to reduce harm from drug use! Legislation has been shown to reduce the amount of drug use. In many ways, drugs are the new slavery. Addicts and enthusiasts do things to get drugs or money for drugs that defy logic. People lose marriages, children, home, employment, character, dignity and even their lives because of drugs. There is no sane argument for suddenly or carelessly removing the legal prohibition against drugs. Thanks to PRO for the great debate.