Drugs should be legalized.

As my opponent has done, I will also start my argument with some rebuttal, before moving onto my main argument that I will be making in this round. "Illegal substances are addictive even if legal, and cause economic harm to individuals and society." The main problem we have as a society, with helping drug addicts, is that it's a grey area whether they can be open and seek support over their addiction. If made legal, they don't need to live in a state of fear and anxiety. They can seek rehabilitation openly and not be terrified about being jailed. If made legal, we can also monitor how many drugs they are buying, which means we can make sure that we put our resources into helping the most venerable. One of the main problems, is that because the drug market is underground, we don't know is at risk and needs rehabilitation. The state's role is to protect and look after it's own people. How can they do this, if some of the most venerable people in our society -some of the people who need our help and attention the most- are being kept at arms length because of the law that drugs are illegal, bad, and that people who take them are not worthy of our help. My opponent also claims that legalizing it will decrease the economic burden on our society as a whole. Is he aware of how much has been spent on fighting drugs? This year alone, the U.S Government has spent over $15 billion dollars on the war on drugs. That's about $500 every second. http://www.drugsense.org... The total figure is close to 1 trillion dollars. A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy: $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs). Does my opponent still think that keeping drugs illegal will decrease, "the economic burden on society as a whole." I hope not. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Drugs harm the Environment." My rebuttal to this point links nicely to my point that I will be making this round. My partner correctly states that a lot of rain forest is being cut down to make way for farmland that drugs will be grown on. However, the problem is being started not by the farmers who are growing the drugs, but by the Americans. One of the main tactics that the Americans have used in the war of drugs, is the eradication of the fields where drugs are being grown. Now this strategy could not be more stupid. The American planes fly over Colombia, spraying glyphosate herbicide (google it) over the fields. It means that not only are the drugs destroyed, the ordinary crops that people grow to eat are destroyed. People starve. The land is then so chemically infected that nothing can grow there for a long, long time. This promotes an anti west feeling in these countries. How would you feel if a plane with an American flag flies over and poisons your financial supply. Not only your financial supply, your food supply. Not best pleased to be honest. Pretty pissed off. That is now what a significant proportion of Colombian farmers feel like. All down to America. So now what do these farmers do? They have to move, as their land is poisoned and they can't stop growing coca because that is far and away the crop which a farmer can get the money from. They do exactly as my partner claimed. Move on, cut some trees down, and start again. Then the exact same thing happens all over again. More poisoned land. More felled rain forest. This cycle won't stop unless the war on drugs stops. The war on drugs has left the American economy and international reputation reeling. The environmental harm of which my opponent speaks of is real. It can be stopped, if we stop polluting the fields of South America. http://en.wikipedia.org...