the abuse of illegal drugs should be a matter of public health, not criminal justice

This follows the Lincoln douglas Debate Format. The affirmative will argue first, and then the negative or con, then affirmative gets a rebuttal in which they can attack the negative case and finally in the last rebutal the negative attacks the aff. I shall state my case and move on to attack my opponents Before I begin this debate, I shall define a few words in the resolution. I negate , Resolved, "The abuse of illegal drugs should be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice. I value Public Safety which is best achieved through the criterion of hegemony, which is essentially a dominant cultural group exerting its power over other lesser cultural groups. Culture is defined by the Merriam websters Dictionary as human beliefs or behaviors often passed on through generations.This means a religion can be considered a culture as well.Hegemony achieves the public safety because the CIA World Fact Book states that 46% of the world's population is either Judaist, Islamic, chiristian, Buddhist, or Hindu, which are the dominant cultural groups in the world. All of them are opposed to the harm drugs can cause, and even most atheist or smaller religious groups still have a certain degree of opposition to the harmful nature of most illegal drugs. Contention one: Public health and criminal justice are interconnected. Looking at most world laws, you will see a noticeable pattern in all of them. The "Do not kill" and "Do not Steal" laws are present in almost every country. Why do such laws exist? One, to prevent anarchy, which is a governments main opposition, but also to protect the citizens of the state. Drugs cause immeasurable harm to other citizens, which is opposed to. The main reason laws are made are one, yes to benefit the government, but also to ensure public welfare. Contention Two: Drugs cause immeasurable harm to the public. Joseph Malamor, A University of Kentucky professor explains, "The drugs alter your body in such a way that you will be often unaware of your actions. A research shows 35% of drug abusers end up commiting some type of murder. Ith this being said, it is the government's obligation to preserve lives, which achieves global stability and morality. On to my opponents case He has no value for his case. What is he trying to achieve? He has no criterion. How does he plan to achieve his value? I automatically win by default because of this. On his contention one, he states violent crimes were commited by violent people. What? Here is his warrant for that claim. That entire contention is dropped because he is giving his own biased assumptions of who drug abusers are, and therefore he is being abusive. Alchohol is the only source that causes aggression? Cross apply my evidence that illegal drugs cause unpredictable behavior, as explained by Jospeh Malamor. He has no warrant for this claim, while I do, so I outweigh him on this evidence. He also states desperate addicts would not need to steal as much. Again, judge, understand he has no warrant for any of these claims and should be disqualified for being overly abusive. If my opponent does not prove public health does not contradict criminal justice, then I win the round. Therefore I urge you to affirm. I apologize for my hastily written case, this will certainly improve by tournament time.