In the US, All drugs should be legalized

My opponent claims my C3 is irrelevant as the resolution does not say the words government. Legalization is defined as to make something lawful, aka repealing a law. [1] And a law is a rule made for the community by some authority, and is enforces by legislation or a judicial process. [2] As we are not an anarchy in the US, and it is done by some authority through legislation, the resolution implies that this is about the government. So C3 stands.D1: Legalization will increase usersMy opponents argument is basically conceding the point to me, and then asks so what? To prove this will have an effect is show how drugs are unhealthy, and have effects on the people around the users. First, parents who are on drugs are afraid to seek help in fear their children will be taken away. [3] Now why is this a problem? If legalization increases users there will be more parents on drugs not getting help therefore hurting the youth. My opponent will likely counter this by saying the reason they are scared is because it is illegal. Even f it was legal child protective services may take away the children regardless. So if legalization increases users more of these cases will occur. The effects drug users family or close friends is depression, and it also may harm the way the family is set up. [3, 4] Drugs not only effect the users, but also effect everyone near him/her. The point is drug legalization will harm many more people then it already does. D2: Smuggling My point here is enforcement is the best way to fight smuggling. Banning it may hurt the black market overtime as its goal (and has been working ok so far) has been to discourage people from using drugs, and this constricts black market profit. [5] Also the black market argument is true for tobacco. In NY the higher cigarette taxes are luring people to the black market for cheaper tobacco. [6] The point is my argument stands as it is simple... nature. If it costs a lot we will go to the lack market. Society and the goverment will tax and regulate the business therefore raising prices, then people go to where its cheap: The black market. Legalization WILL NOT end the black market for currently illegal drugs.D3: International lawSee above.D4: Crime My opponent claims there have been almost 2 million drug arrests, but what he hasn't forgotten is those people where arrested for other reasons, and then the drug charge was slapped on to seal the deal. Only 700 people where arrested for solely drug usage. [7] Also, as one can see from my argument, I was mainly focused on violent crime and robbery. Drug usage changes behavior, and therefore makes you more likely to commit a crime. [8] Increased addiction rates will happen when we legalize drugs, [9] which it is now logical to assume they will now commit more crimes with the newly found increased addiction rates. --> Quick summary of my arguments:1. Drugs hurt the user and everyone around him, legalization will increase users, this means more people are negativity effected by drugs 2. Legalization may not end smuggling. 3. We can't legalize drugs by treaty.4. Drugs cause people to become aggressive and cause them to commit crimes, and increased users from legalization would increase crime. --> His caseRc1: ECONOMIC COSTSThe case here is it is a huge portion of spending. Drug war spending seems high as people are really bad with visualizing large numbers, they hear the billion/million and jaw drop. But if you look at it, drug spending is a very minor part of the budget. [10] (see source 10)It is only 11 billion dollars, welfare for example is almost one trillion, pensions one trillion, and defense is near one trilion. [11] Drug spending is minor compared to everything else. Rc2: Jail costsAs I have stated the number of people in jail only for drug usage is a mere 700 people. And most of these non violent drug users get treatment (rehab) and jail time. [12] For visial aid I will have a grap showing how rare it is to have only drug posssion as your only offense (data from one state) (see source 12)As we can see there are very few soely drug usage crimes. And the majority of them get treatment, [12] something drug legalizers say they support.Rc3: Cost to users The market would still exist if legal.Rc4: EthicsThe argument here is the non-agression principle. people that belive in this are against all crime. [13] (robbery and such) As drugs cause crime one could argue banning it is now in their interests. (that video is stuck in my head agh!!) As the non-agression principle as my opponent states is against violence, they should be pro drug illegalization as drugs cause people to commit these acts of violence, and as it is bad for famly and freinds.My opponents argument also lies upon it is my right to use drugs etc. Well first basic civil rights argue or prohibitive drug laws. Also there is no right if it infringes on life or pursuit of happiness. well see this:"The notion that illicit drug use is a victimless crime and that everyone should be free to do what they want with their body disregards the web of social interactions that constitute human existence. Affected by an individual’s illicit drug use are children, parents, grandparents, friends, colleagues, work, victims of drugged drivers, crime victims, elder abuse, sexual victims, patients made sicker by medical marijuana etc. Illicit drug use is no less victimless than alcoholism." [14]As it unfiringes on this there is no right to drugs, and banning it is ok. Vote Con. (sorry if I was short)[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.mqi.ie...; [4] Barnard, M (2005) Drugs in the Family - The Impact on Parents and Siblings. University of Glasgow[5] http://www.justice.gov... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [7] http://www.sarnia.com... [8] http://www.justice.gov... [9] http://www.justice.gov...[10] http://www.justice.gov... [11] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [12] http://www.justice.gov...[13] http://en.wikipedia.org... [14] Drug Free Australia "arguments for Prohibition"