End the War on Drugs...

But first, a statement: My opponent has commented that he wishes an alcohol/cigarette style limitation on these drugs. And I shall debate accordingly. "Here my opponent commits a strawman fallacy, misrepresenting my position. " I apologize for the mistake but must correct my opponent. A strawman fallacy was not made because I did not deliberately attack a misrepresented point, nor did I base an argument on that misrepresentation. Hence, it cannot be aptly named "strawman fallacy". "My opponent only addresses my point about drugs only affecting the user, ignoring all of the other benefits to legalization. " I do not deny that there are all those other benefits should the legalization of all drugs go exactly according to your plan. However, my argument is that because we are in a managed care system of health care, none of those benefits will be realized as you set forth in your argument. "Fair enough. Drug use is dangerous. " Then my opponent concedes that the drugs he wishes to legalize and make freely available to the public will, to the person, cause great injury for no medicinal purpose. We now go to my opponent's rebuttal of my main argument. "First, what about all of the illegal drug users right now who have health insurance? They are covered, and yet society is not falling apart. If anything, legalization will help with this issue, because when drugs become less dangerous, people will consume less insurance. " The illegal drug users now are limited because there are few of them. Legalizing all illicit drugs will absolutely cause the number of addicts to skyrocket. More users means more addicts, these illegal drugs are addictive by their very nature and in order to even be effective recreationally, an amount that causes dependence and addiction needs to be taken. This means that every recreational drug user will 100% become a burden on the health care system. In addition, the legalization of these drugs would lead to a substantial number of potentially fatal drug-drug interactions between regular prescription drugs. One does not even have to be an addict, only on a certain medication or dietary supplement to receive health problems. "Second, alcohol and tobacco are legal in the United States. Users of these two very dangerous drugs are covered by health insurance, and yet the system is not falling apart. " To already classify alcohol and tobacco as "very dangerous" would leave few applicable descriptions for the three drugs my opponent wishes to legalize. Compared to alcohol and tobacco, the drugs cocaine, heroine, and ecstasy are far, FAR more deadly. The quantities in which alcohol and nicotine would cause fatality is astronomical in comparison to that of the three illegal drugs, there is absolutely no comparison. Users of alcohol and nicotine can be relatively healthy for decades and decades, but those who use cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy will begin suffering intensely in less than a year. "What about people who abuse legal narcotics, such as oxycontin? My opponent assumes too much, and his argument simply does not hold water when we consider the facts. " The number of people who abuse prescription medications is few. Pharmacists are trained to detect drug-seeking behavior and the fact that a prescription is needed in order to obtain this medication makes it very easy to catch those who are drug abusers. The DEA is also heavily invested in catching overuse of these medications and they are very, VERY tightly regulated. Much more so than tobacco or alcohol. Oxycodone is essentially a substantially safer version of Heroin, with less addictive nature, much less side effects, and better medical use. The facts are not on my opponent's side for this point. "Countries with high alcohol and tobacco taxes do not suffer from this problem. " There are plenty of safe ways to enjoy alcohol and tobacco, but for those three drugs I mentioned? The recreational aspect is necessarily linked with all the properties that are destructive to health. In addition, those who drink casually or smoke casually do not necessarily get addicted. To make cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy use anything remotely definable as a "habit" is suicide. **** There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of chemical substances available for medical use that would kill a person in seconds if ingested, in a dose that you can barely fit on your fingernail. Thankfully, there are rules and regulations that protect people from having these drugs readily available. In addition, for any drug that one can become addicted to, there are series of rules and regulations preventing abuse and further addiction. Not only that, but there are drugs which can easily react with not only other prescription medications, but also over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, or even food. Luckily, pharmacies can keep track of those and warn people about the dangers of potentially fatal interactions. The sleeping pill "Ambien", generic name Zolpidem, is a controlled substance because it is habit forming. One cannot get this medication without a prescription. My opponent has clarified that the regulations for these drugs should be the same as tobacco and alcohol. My opponent is suggesting that we take the world's deadliest, most addictive drugs, substances with absolutely no medical usage, and make it available to everyone with a 21 license, in whatever quantity they wish, so long as they have the money, making them more available than Ambien. But let's set aside the absurdity of this proposal. Let's go back to Health Insurance. My opponent thinks that because alcohol and cigarettes are fine, then so must these drugs. He is very, very poorly informed. My opponent's comparison of Cocaine, Heroin, and Ecstasy with tobacco and alcohol is completely unfounded. The addictive nature of these drugs as well as the inherent danger to one's health simply cannot be compared to that of tobacco or alcohol. The very thought of such a comparison is ludicrous. What my opponent does not understand is that there is absolutely no safe way to take these three drugs recreationally. To make it available for recreational use is, for all intents and purposes, to turn them into addicts and destroy their health. Normally, that would be okay with my opponent because of his stance on personal liberty. Health insurance is hideously expensive already. The more meds people take, the more sick they get, the more hospital visits, the more expensive for everyone. With all of these addicts popping up, regular people who think legal = safe, people who ignorantly think as my opponent does: That the deadliest, most addictive drugs in the world are like sipping a wine cooler or a smoking a newport, do you really want to pay the hospital bills for people this irresponsible?