Drug Legalization

Refutations 1. The Cost of the Drug War in Money and Lives I am against the drug war on principle, and as such am against it no matter how much money is spent on it. However, to intrude in peoples' lives and keep drugs out of your country will always cost a lot of money. In the US it is approximately $10 billion a year, which is a very large amount of money. Many schools are facing financial crisis and we are facing a debt crisis, and throwing money around to fix pseudo problems is not a good idea. I concede that it is very likely that the gangs and violence could probably be reduced by following a more sensible plan in the war on drugs. However, I think that they will always be present due to the high cost of drugs and the resulting profit motive. 1B. Society On crime after drug legalization. Your arguments are all theoretical, and it is likely you are missing some theoretical evidence because the empirical evidence speaks otherwise. There have been two periods of high homicide rates in the history of the US- from 1920-1934 and 1970-1990. The 1920-1934 period was during alcohol prohibition, and the 1970-1990 period was when drug prohibition became more vigorously enforced[1]. To quote from my source "Prima facie, this pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that alcohol prohibition increased violent crime: homicide rates are high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect; the homicide rate drops quickly after 1933, when Prohibition was repealed; and the homicide rate remains low for a substantial period thereafter. Further, the homicide rate is low during the 1950s and early 1960s, when drug prohibition was in existence but not vigorously enforced, but high in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition was enforced to a relatively stringent degree. " On drugs and crime. I was not wasting your time with it. There is a serious body of research that shows that drug use and crime is a correlation, not causation[2]. The main point of the article is essentially that a number of social, physiological and cultural factors can be used to identify both drug users and criminals (i. e. poverty, lack of social values, association with drug users and/or criminals). What this means is that if you are a criminal, it is likely you are a drug user, and vice versa. This does not immediately mean that drugs cause you to commit crimes. It actually is that if you possess one or more of the predicting factors, you are likely to be both a drug user and a criminal. My opponent claims that using drugs causes you to be more likely to commit crimes, and I will admit that some drugs do make it more likely to commit crimes. However, drugs such as marijuana and heroin actually make you less willing to commit crimes (though crimes may increase during heroin withdrawal). Not only that, there is a very important body of research you are missing. You were correct when you said that 25% of criminals had used drugs on the day they committed a crime. However, about 36% of criminals used alcohol that day before committing the crime. Not only that, homicide and assaults were predominantly alcohol related, while robbery and similar crimes were predominantly drug related[2]. Drugs are not the source of all evil. 2. Success I concede that there is good ways to lower drug usage. They also cost money. Why is it that we will throw money at pseudo problems? There is still no real reason to ban drugs. My opponent has only shown that it may be successful. 3. Morality My opponent claims that the government should protect you from yourself. When I said that the government should protect you, I meant that they should protect you from others. My opponent's argument could also be applied to forcing people to eat a nutritionally correct meal or locking them in a room to protect them from accidents. It is hard to draw the line when you are protecting people from themselves. Forcing people to eat correctly would also save thousands of lives. Does my opponent recommend that we also force nutritionally correct meals? Locking them in a small room with stimuli and food would also save thousands of lives. Every person that died from accidents would have been alive now. The trouble is that is it the government's job to be an authoritarian nursemaid protecting everyone from themselves, or a protector and solver of disputes? Is it the government's job to rule over every aspect of your life in order to lessen your risks? The government is not protecting you from drugs. They are protecting you from yourself. You make the decision to take the drugs. If you get addicted, should the government take the role of a private Drugs Anonymous while ignoring the cries of the majority, or to thoughtfully do nothing? On free will. Yes, you can get addicted to drugs. You made the choice, and you are now addicted. However, if the government is supposed to help people regain their free will, what about the fact that they are trampling over the majority's rights? Drug addicts are actually in the minority of drug users[2][3]. The government would essentially be a drug rehab group for a minority while trampling over the rights of the majority. In addition, why should government take over the role of private drug rehabilitation groups? Not only is it not the government's role private groups have proven themselves time and time again to be more effective. For example, government welfare only gives 25% to recipients while giving 75% to the administrators, while private groups give 75% to recipients and 25% to administrators[4]. "As such, it is needed to protect both people, and their freedoms. " As such, it is needed to protect people from themselves, and to trample over their freedoms. Summarizations My Opponent's Case with annotations The War on Drugs can be relatively costly, but it is also relatively successful. It leads to less criminals (not only is there little to no causation from drugs to crime, crime has historically dropped after prohibitions) and protects people (from themselves, which is immoral). My Case I concede to my opponent that the War on Drugs can have a relatively low cost and a relatively high success rate. The problem is that you are throwing money and trampling over rights in order to fix a pseudo problem. Drug use does not cause crime, it is rather a simple case of correlation. Alcohol is a worse problem in regards to crime. You may become addicted to drugs. However, if they government forced all to stop then they would ignore the rights of a majority in favor of a minority. It is not the governments role to rule over every aspect of your life in order to lessen your risks. Drug prohibition leads to increased homicide and crime rates. The only government whose role is to protect you from yourself is a totalitarian one. The government is not supposed to be an authoritarian nursemaid, it is supposed to be a protector and administrator of justice. Voting Guide Spelling and Grammar, Conduct, and Sources are all more or less equal. What this debate comes down to is arguments. My opponent has successfully shown that drug use can be reduced relatively successfully at a relatively low price. He has not shown that drugs are a problem, however. He has attempted to show that drug legalization leads to crime (false) and that it is the government's role to protect you from yourself (false). Pro deserves arguments. Thank you. Sources [1] . http://eh.net... [2] . http://www.parl.gc.ca... [3] B. K. Alexander, Peaceful Measures. Canada's Way Out of the War on Drugs, University of Toronto Press, 1990 [4] . http://www.lpmn.org...