All drugs should be legal

Thank you for this great debate :)1. Taking drugs does not violate rightsPRO begins by making an assertion that is philisophically wrong. Seeing how PRO never refuted the idea that the Constitution and the federal government protects the collective, he acts under the framework I set to try to mitiagte the effects of the argument. PRO misinterprets the meaning of collectivism. By definition, it focuses itself on the "community, society, or nation." (1) To put it simply, if the federal government was concerning itself with individual rights, murder would be considered a federal crime (as murder violates someone's right to life.) But, only murder's of ambassadors and other members of the government fall under federal jurisdiction. This is simply because, the murder of the president affects national security, not just individual security. States protect individual rights, the federal government protects the collective. While the collective may be made up of people with rights, the federal government only concerns itself with protecting collective rights. "General welfare" is in the consitution. "Individual welfare" is not.PRO writes (in response to the Netherlands point) "the property crimes were done by people. Not drugs." You are right, the crimes were done by people. They were committed by people to get money for drugs. The drug users committed these crimes. At least that is what the statisitics show. No, I stated that "drugs, poverty, and crime all go hand in hand." (Round 3). You are right, If I am not mistaken, my opponent has conceeded this point and wishes to reduce drug use, poverty, and crime. Since, we have shown a positive correlation between an increase in crime and drug legalization, what reaon do we have to legalize drugs? None. Furthermore, since legitamate buisnesses normally do not act in crime ridden areas, why would we want to increase crime thus driving legitamate businesses away, thus causing more poverty?2. Failure of ProhibitionPRO has dropped all points about public health. Since my opponent merely asserts is is logical to assume that since "Capone's organization was made so powerful by alcohol trading, logically the other mobs would have seen this and followed suit." But, this is unsubstantiated by any source. Couldn't we also assume that since Al Capone became so powerful, other organizations would be dettered from getting into the alcohol trade thus leaving Capone all the buisness? I mean that is a logical, unsubstantiated argument as well. Both, if just relying on logic, are equally as valid.3. More Power to Gangs/cartelsMy opponent argues that cartels would no longer have to work under ground if drugs were legalized, thus the buisness is already there. But, like my opponent stated above, these are very dangerous organizations. My opponent assumes they would adapt to a free and open market no problem at all. Quite honestly, how does legalizing drugs make them any less dangerous? They are dangerous, no doubt about it, but legalization will not remove the cartels, since legalization hurts their profits, so would these cartels not resist, on a large scale in order to keep prices up so they can get a profit? Quite simply, PRO makes the baseless argument that cartels would adapt to a free, competitive market without any problems. PRO says detterents fail. He justifies this argument by asserting that since crime is a problem, the Criminal Justice System is failing. But, crime has been declining, not rising, so there is no reason to believe deterents don't work.PRO holds that a realistic society of rights is better than an unrealistic utopia. I held that the United States should hold the policy that is most effective at decreasing drug use, bringing us closer to a utopia. Should we not strive for the "perfect" society that my opponent and I both agree upon?4. Users cannot be helped.First, my opponent claims there is a market for illegal drugs and the dealers are marketing them as perfectly safe. They never show where the dealer would be marketing in the first place. No drug dealer would advertise their product as perfectly safe or anything for that matter. They are not going to commit complete fraud, because then you won't come back, you will find another dealer. My opponent has shown no evidence of anyone being scammed, thus the entire argument is not based in reality.PRO argues against my statement that "If good A, B, and C are all unhealthy. A is illegal. B and C are legal, should the government legalize A simply because B and C are legal? It makes no sense to legalize more unhealthy goods which will lead to more lost productivity." By stating this opens a pandora's box of philosophical questions. I never once asserted there was a line "between healthy and not healthy enough for legality." All I pointed out was that if 3 things are unhealthy, why should you legalize another unhealthy thing? That is it. My opponent never answers my question. And tries to avoid it. But, if your basis of legalization or illegalization is centered around healthiness, then why legalize another thing which is detrimental to the human body? No matter how detrimental it may be. PRO then asserts the police could be more productive if drugs were legal. This is true, simply because there would be more crime if drugs were legal.5. Nobody cares about Jersey xDI am pretty sure that I only made one reference to Trenton and Newark. And a lot of people care about Jersey...I mean I know people from Jersey and I live right across the river from Trenton. A member of the gang the Bloods once showed up at a party I was at. I got out of there pretty quickly xDThank you very much for this debate. :)1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;