Enough is enough Congress, give me back my freedoms!

As you can see the bulk of my argument is rebutting his statements, and that is what this argument will be like too. To start, you say 'You see, government exists NOT to protect us from ourselves, but to protect ourselves from others'. So on that basis, drugs should still be outlawed, because if someone gives you drugs and makes you addicted and it slowly kills you, then it's the government's job to protect you. The government can't stop people speeding, but forcing a seat belt on you makes sure that should they speed, you won't be as harmed. Alchohol can lead to serious disease like lung cancer and people can become dependent on alchohol as a source of happiness rather than their lifes themsleves, turning your base idea on its head. As for gambling, you say it's the only freedom you want. You say someone should be able to use their money how they wish. Like a very risky, short term investment. But I will match this one argument with this: - Once people start gambling, they can become addicted. This leads to people spending their whole wages sometimes on gambling alone. - People aren't educate on the perils of gambling and how much money they can stand to lose. Most times, they barely even have a 1:10 chance of winning. Would you buy a house that had a 10% chance of not collapsing, or stocks with a 90% chance to go down at any one point? No, and the government needs to protect its people by regulating gambling. The solution seen by many to people in danger of violence through drugs, alchohol or prostitution is legalize it. But this isn't. The government should work on educating people on the dangers of the above, and combating them through police force or neighbourhood schemes. The laws should stay in place, because if we remove them people may be 'free' and one step closer to their 'american dream', it can degrade their lives and often deterioarate someone until they are ging away from their dream. You close with hsaying we need to respect what people need to do even if I think i'm in a state of happiness. So is it a state of happiness when our liver cancer rates soar, when you cough past half the cafe's you walk past because people are smoking marijuana and such in there? I would say that these laws protect the people, and leave open more windows than they close. Keeping alchohol away from minors is common sense, as it can keep them focused and away from a serious addiction. Yes teens will experiment in alleys and parks and theyre more safe in a establishment doing so, but they're supply will always be limited aswell as the money they can get. The same is for drugs, but on an everyone basis. Drugs like Marijuana, can reduce brain activity and cause heart attacks and strokes. If people starting smoking it without someone to enforce it, people could die. This is complete negligence by the government. You also say that charging tax revenue will justify this, but it appales me that when people are handing 100's upon 100's to fuel their crazed addiction, you're scourging money off them. All I want to say is this: Legalizing drugs won't change anything. More people will smoke it (mainly the youth) and get the addiction which is hard to come off of. My opponent never mentioned anything about rehab for people who want to get out of their addiction, so they will have no help beyond our current standards, which isn't great. The laws here, such as seat belt laws, are to protect the people on not a level of parenting, but on a level of common sense. I feel gambling should be allowed, but under strict regulations, as it is like a drug. As for alchohol to minors, it is wrong to unleash a drink that damages the brain, is a giver of cancer and is addicting, amongst the uneducated youth. I'm going to close with this. The government is here to protect its people. The way it does this is by you choosing who it is you want to govern it. Without law, there is no freedom.