Drug legalization

My opponent seems to have hung himself up on the medical marijuana phrasing I used briefly, to wittingly combat his "regulate them to keep them from the insane" remark. You act as though I got stuck on it throughout the second round. I brought it up in one sentence, and in no way have gone off topic, and will no longer waste any more time on it. "the fact that this study was conducted by the government in no way ensures it's accuracy, but it doesn't matter because I never denied the study. " I'm fairly sure the Office of National Drug Control receives enough funding to ensure the accuracy of their studies. And no you didn't deny the study, that would be impossible, you just attempted to discredit all of its results. "All I did was demonstrate that because about 33% of the country has smoked marijuana (see citing in last argument), they are overrepresented in arrests by a mere 1% when those charged with possession, sale, or manufacture are discounted. " If you are referring to the study again, then sure, 33% of the country has smoked marijuana. The tests were on people who were high at the time of arrest, and not results of prisoners who have smoked at some point in their lives. "And as for your arguments about those with a criminal record and others who could be banned from buying, no, they could not buy drugs elsewhere because illicit drug salesmen would be completely driven out of business by the government. The remaining customers would be too few and too far spread to support the illegal sale of pot. " You seem to have a bit of a naive view on how the world works. If there are criminals or anybody for that matter who need to obtain marijuana illegally, then there will be a business for it. And what makes you believe that a large number of people wont just buy it from dealers like always, at a lower price. Taxing it would increase the price of marijuana. And by legalizing marijuana, you are not bring drug cartels to their knees, not even close. They have well established and working routes to smuggle drugs into the States, and will continue to do so, the only thing that will come of ending the drug war, is you will allow these cartels more leisure to operate. "No, as a matter of fact marijuana is not legal in Australia [1]. And I agree with you and Governor Schwarzenegger on the effects of legalization in other countries, which is why I looked at the Netherlands. In America, where these substances are illegal, we have a higher marijuana prevalence, a higher heroin prevalence, a higher cocaine prevalence, a higher incarceration rate, and a higher homicide rate then in the Netherlands [2]. Now, it would be idiotic to assume that the legality of pot is the cause of all of these statistics, but as you yourself said, there is a correlation between drug use and crime, and when drugs are legalized, crime goes down. " You're right, that was my fault I phrased that wrong. Marijuana is decriminalized in most regions of Australia, meaning that if you are stopped for some reason and an ounce or more is found on you, they ticket you, as if you were speeding. They rarely enforce this, and the fines are quite small. [2] And as for our higher rates, keep in mind that Netherlands has about %5 of the United States population. And I thoroughly read through your source, and while I found Netherlands drug prevalence charts, I could not find any statistics on United States drug prevalence. Only that Tobacco is America's #1 Killer. :D I did say there was a correlation between drug use and crime, but you tried to say it was minimal. And yes when drugs are legalized, crime rate* goes down, violent crimes are something else entirely. Just because the crime rate goes down, does not mean the streets are any safer, considering these arrests were made for possession. "In this and his other arguments on the health value of marijuana, my opponent is partially correct. Marijuana is a complex drug, and it is hardly understood well. However, as he himself will admit, there is a fair amount of doubt as to pot's affects, and marijuana has been linked to many health problems as well as benefits. The arguments surrounding it are comprised as much of myth as truth, and much that we believe about it is not true. " That seems like an unnecessary paragraph, I covered the same thing twice. And it was a university study, which seems like it should warrant some acknowledgement for being far more truth than myth. "It doesn't matter whether those in rehab have legal action taken against them, what matters is the stigma that exists against drugs. If people are addicted to drugs, then they believe that coming out about it will garner legal action and negative consequences, whether true or not, which is why many choose to remain addicted. " I'm sure the stigma and fear of legal action is a very small factor in an addicts choice to enlist in rehabilitation. But allow me to make another argument, which I am trying to refrain from doing as you will not be able to properly address. -Closing Arguments- The amount of money that could stimulate the economy from such a tax, would be in the shadows of the billions spent to fund rehabilitation centers. Here's one example of an areas $10 million dollar spending. [1] The more available these drugs become, the more rehabilitation is required. I will not even go back to emphasizing that legalizing street drugs for recreational use is a horrible idea, because it has no benefit to society, you cannot prove otherwise, and it poses a danger and puts the rights of other citizens at risk. [3] Do you really think we need more addicts running around our streets? The country would also have to pay the cost for regulating these drugs, which would come from government funding thus the tax payers. Alone the economic gains are just not there, and any small gains that could be there as a result of taxing the sale of drugs is not worth the safety of the public. You can not end the sale of illegal drugs in the U. S. by regulating them, there will still be a large portion of illegal vendors. I'd have preferred it if my opponent hadn't made the judgement that because my profile says I am a conservative, that I actually am, or for that matter necessarily agree with everything they believe in. Personal liberty only goes so far and when it becomes a risk to other people, poses a threat to society. Marijuana poses a threat to others health and safety, no matter how directly or indirectly. I'd like to thank my opponent again for not allowing this debate to center solely on marijuana, even though we lingered there for quite a while. The only criticism I have about this debate was that there was too many sources cited to disprove one anothers arguments, and not enough supporting our own. [1] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.articlesbase.com... [3] . http://www.mpp.org...