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

Many thanks to my opponent for this debate.In this debate, I hope to advance the values of freedom, individual choice and responsibility. First, I will argue that when freedom of choice is constrained, human dignity is eroded. If drug use is an individual's choice, then so long as and to the extent that any individual is externally coerced by the rule of law, individual rights are the opportunity cost. I will begin by making my case, and then I will address the points my opponent raised in introduction. I argue:(1) Individuals are accountable, and only accountable for their choices.If people are capable of formulating the intent to act in some way or not to act in some way, they have acted with volition. To act with volition is to imply that the actor is accountable for his or her actions, but only accountable for those actions. Because no individual may form affect upon another the volition to act unless he coerces him, in the absence of coercion sufficient to overcome the individual will of the coerced men are responsible for their actions. However, where it is the case that coercion, sufficient to overcome the individual will of the coerced, causes the coerced to act as he otherwise would not, it may be said that the actions of the coerced are the vicarious actions of the coercer rather than the act of the individual subject to coercion.If external coercion by the rule of law where drugs are illegal is sufficient to preclude individual drug use, then the the individual whom is subject to coercion is not choosing for himself to use or not to use drugs, but rather his decisions are the product of his or her being externally acted upon by a coercer -in this case the rule of law. If external coercion by the rule of law where drugs are illegal is not sufficient to preclude individual drug use, then the individual will has been exercised insomuch as it was able to resist the force of coercion. Where individual’s choices (such as that of drug use) are constrained by external coercion, to the extent that their actions are influenced or impacted by either the force of coercion or resistance to coercion, individual moral and ethical agency is undermined as those and the actions of those “acted upon” are forced to reconcile their will with that of an external force.(2) Drug use is an individual’s choice.If an individual choice is the act of selecting an option from two or more possibilities, then because one may choose to use drugs or not to use drugs, drug use is an individual choice. However, if the choice to use drugs or not to use drugs is subject to external coercion by the force of law, then legislation and the legislature that passed it are constraining individual choice. By constraining individual choice, human dignity is the opportunity cost of the rule of law as the individual is coercively acted upon by the law maker. The “acting upon” individuals by external agent’s imposition of coercion to the effect that individual’s choices are constrained is a violation of individual liberty, and an alienation of the human dignity of those made subject to external rule.Because drug use is an individual choice in which the agent making the choice is the subject acted upon and the only subject acted upon, the decision to use or not to use drugs is an individual’s have a right to make for themselves. By making drug use illegal as such, the rule of law functions to alienate the rights of the individuals that the law’s just exercise ought to protect. So, because drug use is an individual’s choice over him or herself, it is necessary and proper that he or she make that choice without external coercion. (3) To the extent that freedom of choice is constrained, human dignity is eroded.Universal human dignity requires that people be afforded freedom. The right of freedom is grounded in human dignity, and is defined as the right or power to act, think, believe and speak as one chooses without external restraint. Freedom implies the absence of external coercion (the use of force, or the threat of the use of force) from law or other coercive forces or agents. So, while universally unrestrained freedom would necessarily preclude any formidable social order, it remains to be the case that universal freedom consistent with that of others within a social order is required if a government is to respect the dignity held by all persons for being people.To externally limit personal freedom (by threat, coercion, or force of law, for example) is to erode human dignity because by limiting an individual’s right or power to act, believe or speak as he or she chooses one is not afforded the opportunity to choose to act in his or her best interest for themselves. By limiting individual choice, the individual whose choice is limited is infantilized by the agent who seeks to limit the individuals choices because they are not afforded the dignity of being permitted to choose what is best for themselves -but rather rely on external judgements to define their interests. An individual who makes a choice to or not to take some action while subject to external coercion cannot take responsibility for their actions because their choices are not of their own will, but the product of external influence. So, because the choice to use drugs like marijuana, cocaine or even heroin is properly and only properly an individuals’s, drugs as mentioned ought to be made not illegal -which is to say they ought to be legalized.Disclaimer on Sources: I did not consult external sources other than my experience in political theory and philosophy for this debate. In response to CON’s initial points:Government is the governing body of a state, and its purpose is to fulfill the tasks of legislating, executing legislation, and adjudicating conflicts within a sovereign territory. However, I neither want to entertain a semantic debate about what government is, but rather what role it ought to occupy in regulating individual's choice pursuant to the resolution. I do, however, invite my opponent to offer his own thought on the point’s I’ve raised here and above. Individuals lives are always already private to the extent that they make decisions for themselves, which affect themselves or those whom they are responsible for (like their families). Individuals lives cease to be private when individuals actions impact others. CON says: “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.”While the notion of the “greatest good” is in keeping with government’s pragmatic role as a common authority among individuals within society, the interests of “greatest good” is not the only metric by which government may justifiably legislate because intrinsic to any just government is the more compelling and prior obligation to protect individual rights and uphold human dignity. So, while if possible to justifiably not act at the expense of the “greatest good” -whatever it may be- to protect the greatest good is a secondary obligation which can only be considered after individual rights are secured and human dignity is respected. By restricting individual’s private choices (those choices individuals make for themselves within their private lives), government erodes human dignity and strips people of their moral and ethical agency by acting vicariously through individuals rather than protecting and upholding individual freedom.I wish my opponent the best in the following round.Thank you for reading.