The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

I will respond to Con's arguments while reinforcing mine. I. Using Illegal Drugs is Illegal This does not apply, the topic at hand is whether we ought to treat it as a matter of public health or criminal justice, not a matter of whether or not it is illegal. In con's own definition it is used to express obligation. Obligation in this context is a duty or commitment. Therefore the topic may be read as, The abuse of illegal drugs should be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice. "Should," in this context, also refers to a duty, or an obligation. This argument provides nothing for Con's side. II. Punishment Stops Drug Use Con's source [1] does not claim this has anything to do with drugs, this does not fully discredit it, but should be known. What I will be focusing on is how this is irrelevant. I have expressed in my opening statement how freedom should be. This is supported by John Stuart Mill with this quote, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Drug consumption does not inherently harm others, therefore the government has no right to determine whether or not we use and consume drugs. Con makes the argument that prisoners are currently being rehabilitated but fails to see how overburdened, an argument he makes later on about medicare, the prison system is. Although the largest category of prisoners are drug offenders, thousands wait months to begin drug education/rehab. This is due primarily to staff shortages as well as resource limitations. [7] More than 51,000 inmates were on waiting lists in 2011, just for basic drug education. This number is even bigger than the 31,803 prisoners that were actually enrolled. Not only does overcrowding stop rehabilitation, what the prison system should be about, it also causes overcrowding. It is an unfortunate circle. The system was holding 218,000 inmates, which is almost 40% more than capacity, and that stops all prisoners from getting the rehabilitation resources they need, which are pathways to early release. [7] In fact, this article shows how relapse is common after release from prison and only 3rd parties can stop it.[8] Here is what they concluded in their study: "Former inmates return to environments that strongly trigger relapse to drug use and put them at risk for overdose. Interventions to prevent overdose after release from prison may benefit from including structured treatment with gradual transition to the community, enhanced protective factors, and reductions of environmental triggers to use drugs." Circling back to the freedom argument, con has no ground to stand on. There is no justification to imprison people for consuming something. There are no grounds whatsoever. To win the freedom argument Con must prove that the act of consuming a drug infringes on someone else's freedoms. The reason why crimes done while under the influence of drugs is not a valid argument because it is entirely possible to not commit crimes while under the influence. Also, crimes while drunk are not a valid argument to abolish alcohol. It's the same sort of thing. III. Drug abuse negatively affects society IIIa. Family This argument is only looking at addicted drug users let's see how many of those there are. (2014 census showed 318.9 million people in the US). "According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 21.5 million American adults (aged 12 and older) battled a substance use disorder in 2014." [9] This means 14.83% of the U.S. population battled drug abuse. If we adjust the number to fit people that are able to have a family, let's say age 18, we would reasonably get about 10%, If we adjust for those that do not have children we get 7.5% because roughly 75% of american's who were able to, had children. [10] This leaves us with the reasonable statistic that 7.5% of the population are subject to con's argument. Drug abuse in tandem with abuse is not common, so lets adjust for that down to 2.5%. This assumes that a third of the people that are subject to be the abusers in con's argument are actually abusing, which is extremely generous. Of course this abuse is horrible, but that is no reason to justify taking away 100% of the population's somatic rights because of the wrong doings of 2.5% of the population. IIIb. Unborn children This is no reason for this to be a reasonable argument unless con is also advocating for the criminal punishment of all alcohol, tobacco, and anything else that effects prenatal development. The reason this argument doesn't apply is the same as before, it is perfectly possible and reasonable that drug users stop using drugs once pregnant or they don't get pregnant in the first place. IIIc. Overburdened institutions NOTE: Con's article also talk about the overburdened prisons because of drug criminalization, but they failed to mention that because it would contradict their other arguments. This goes to show that my point is true. This argument is illogical. He states how much it costs to medicare but that doesn't prove anything. This argument suggests that helping people who are injured doing a recreational activity, in this case drugs, is costly. Or maybe con is saying we just shouldn't help injuries or other medical situations due to recreational activities. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, sports, driving for fun, public events, parties, etc. But hey, they knew the risks when they did those things so why should we help them when it goes wrong? Con then goes on to claim that people would be more willing to do drugs if there was no punishment and the government would help them. He doesn't cite anything. I can cite what claims the exact opposite. [11] "No. It would be much more difficult to buy dangerous hard drugs than now. If drugs were legal, people would be able to talk about them, they would not be so taboo or exciting. Drugs would become less cool. Maybe, people who have real problems would get help quickly. More people could be helped with the money saved in the police, customs and justice systems." What is being referenced here is that the government would be regulating these drugs in such a way that they are safer, harder to get (require a permit or extra education to have), and stops drug crime. IIId. Professional Again, not a valid argument because it could be used for legal substances that alter the mind like alcohol, and those aren't illegal in every instance. Conclusion Con provided a lot of arguments that seem good on the surface, but just don't pan out. Anything that Con has claimed as an impact is either outweighed, see Family abuse arguments, or not unique to illegal substances; see unborn children, overburdened institutions, and professional impairment arguments. Con has not provided any significant argumentation that would sway the debate in their favor, I look forward to the rest of the debate! Sources: [7] http://www.usatoday.com... [8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [9] http://americanaddictioncenters.org... [10] http://www.gallup.com... [11]https://eewiki.newint.org...