The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized

Again, I will acknowledge the fact that Conduct should most definitely go to my opponent due to my mistake.However, I would like to point out one key fact about the resolution It states that "The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized*"*With the exception of meth and heroin.Now let me see if my opponent's third point says anything of interest concerning this resolution. "I do not believe this said drug should be legal, as it sounds worse then heroin." Case and point, my opponent conceded to my claim and thus, the argument itself. My burden of proof was to show that not all drugs should be legalized, and if my opponent agreeing with me that krokodil -which let me remind you is neither meth nor heroin- should be illegal isn't a concession, then I do not know what is.I would then like to note that my opponent not only conceded on this point, but believes that I must prove that LSD and ecstasy should be illegal. The fact of the matter is, the resolution does not call for this. I need not prove that all drugs should be legal, but that there is at least one drug that should not be, which my opponent already conceded to.But, for the sake of being thorough, let me counter my opponent's points anyway.1) There is indeed a lack of crime as compared to America and I already stated that tax dollars would indeed be saved. But my opponent's reasoning is flawed as correlation does not necessarily signify causation. As my opponent noted there is less crime in the Netherlands, but as I noted in my argument, which my opponent did not refute as false, drug users in Amsterdam make up 80% of all those who commit property crime. Now, let me remind you that Amsterdam itself is different than the rest of the Netherlands as drugs are heavily regulated outside that province, and are instead legal to anyone over the age of 18 within the province. The usage of drugs such as marijuana in the entirety of The Netherlands is not representative of where it is completely legal in Amsterdam, making my opponent's claim that legalization lowers usage rates invalid. This is even taking into account that hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin are illegal and only 'soft drugs' such as marijuana are legal.My opponent then states that those who were addicted to morphine were addicted because its related to heroin. In fact, heroin is derived from the morphine produced by opium. If opium is the starting point for other addictives, why should it be legal while heroin should not be? My opponent does not say, and in fact I would go as far as to say since they are different drugs entirely, and my opponent piles the harmful effects of each together, they should BOTH be illegal by his logic.2) I already noted my opponent mistaken here. Furthermore my opponent has no answer for the fact that just because something is not allowed does not mean people will stop taking it. If a person is truly addicted to a drug, would it matter to them what a label on a bottle says? People who take drugs are more than likely aware of the harmful effects related to them, after all, they ARE illegal today.3) I already stated that my opponent conceded the debate here. Remember my burden of proof I only need to show that one drug should be made illegal, and my opponent has conceded to that one drug. I need not have proved anything else, but I showed the deaths attributed to cocaine and harmful nature of legalization of other 'soft drugs' such as marijuana, fulfilling and exceeding my burden of proof.Conclusion:If someone is adamant about taking a drug, they will simply take it regardless of what a sticker on a bottle tells them what to do. If the threat of jail time does not scare them into obedience, why should a warning label? I also disproved my opponent's assertion that drug use decreases crime as his statistics were far too broad to be measured accurately with those of the United States (a more air representation would have been drug usage rates in Amsterdam vs the USA rather than all of The Netherlands. Finally my opponent once again mentions the drug revenue that can be made from selling and creating drugs. I agree that this revenue could be made... but that does not mean certain drugs should be available to the public as my opponent agrees. The fact of the matter is that not all drugs need to be legalized to achieve these effects. It is not an all or nothing claim as my opponent may believe. Though I urge you to award my opponent conduct points, his concession of the resolution makes it clear that I have fulfilled my burden of proof. Vote Con.Thank you for the debate.