Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

To start things off, I apologize of my broad source, as I was not aware that the URL led to the home page. Here are my sources to my previous round. 1.http://www.policechiefmagazine.org... 2. https://ncadd.org... 3.http://www.denverpost.com... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org... 5.http://www.businessinsider.com... 6.http://www.dhhs.nh.gov... Hopefully these sources will clear up any confusion due to broad URL. I will keep in mind of that in the following rounds. "He provides no evidence for this. Increased drinking may lead to an unstable society, but I don't see anyone trying to reinstate prohibition" I have provided my evidence to my previous round (" it is safe to assume an increased drug rate will lead to an unstable society which the risk alone is not worth taking.") By quoting the DEA and providing the source (1). Also, I have also provided the the state's GDP (or GSP) of vermont and New Hampshire, showing that they have one of the lowest GDP (or GSP). Notice, those states also have a hgh use of drug problem? Again, I am not applying that the decline of GDP (or GSP) is the sole cause of a high drug problem, but rather it is important to look at and it may be more than just a mere coincidence. Regarding the DEA, the reply to drug advocates is- "Ask legalization proponents if the alleged profits from drug legalization would be enough to pay for the increased fetal defects, loss of workplace productivity, increased traffic fatalities and industrial accidents, increased domestic violence and the myriad other problems that would not only be high-cost items but extremely expensive in terms of social decay". (1, under paragraph titled "economy issues") So my point is, the risk is not worth taking in regards to the DEA and the GDP (or GSP) of those to states. "He plagiarizes the DEA without linking a source. In addition, he provides no evidence either that the DEA actually said that or that it is true." Con then accuses me of plagiarism, when I have quoted the DEA. Con is accusing me of plagiarism because of my source not directly taking to the webpage. I have no objection to that, however I have posted my source again, hopefully to resolve the conflict. "It is preposterous to think that banning drugs could stop terrorism" No, banning drugs would not stop terrorism. However, the drugs were TIED to terrorism. Yes, most likely the train bombing would have occurred without the use of drugs, however it is possible it might have taken a longer time to collect the money. Keep in mind that this is NOT the main reason to not legalize drugs. "Drugs are related to crime. Why? Because it is illegal to use them." It appears as if con did not fully read my argument. No, I am not referring that that drugs are illegal therefore, they are related to crime. I am referring that if you look at the inmates, 80% of offenders abuse drugs or alcohol. Nearly 50% of jail and prison inmates are clinically addicted. Approximately 60% of individuals arrested for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drugs at arrest. 60 - 80% of drug abusers commit a new crime (typically a drug-driven crime) after release from prison. Approximately 95% return to drug abuse after release from prison. My points are referring that the Drugs make you commit crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, serious motor vehicle offenses with dangerous consequences, arson and hate crimes It is quite clear that my opponent did not read my argument and assumed that I was referring that “drugs are illegal therefore, they are related to crime” “Now, let's look at the ethics surrounding this issue. It is morally wrong to arrest a nonviolent person who wasn't hurting anyone else” Well, that would be false if my opponent ignored my previous statement of how 95% inmates return to drug abuse, 60 - 80% of drug abusers commit a new crime (typically a drug-driven crime) after release from prison, and how 80% of offenders abuse drugs or alcohol. Of course not all drug users are criminals, but if we legalize all drugs, we would see skyrocketing rates in crime and lost productivity. Keep in mind that this is a case about legalizing drugs, not about current drug laws. “it is immoral to ruin someone's life because they did something that harmed absolutely nobody.” Again, this is a case about legalizing drugs or not, it is not about if current drug laws should be that harsh or not. “just like with prohibition, the way to take away the violence and gang wars that come with drugs is to legalize them” Well, again. . .Drugs lead to violent crimes. We need to break the chain of drugs and crime, not make it stronger. Here is my moral point of view: I am not going to address my views in points, but I will address them in paragraph form. Drugs do lead to violent crime, thus ruining the victim's life regardless of the law. Now, the offender’s life is also ruined because of the law. Regarding the drug testing of jobs that I mentioned earlier, if more people are available to drug use, it is likely more people will lose jobs. Another reason why legalizing drugs may lead to a downfall in our economy. (3) Now, I will move on to Con’s sources. Con’s first source clearly states at the top “Do not cite”, yet he does so. Con accuses me of my sources, yet his source are not meant to be used. Seems a bit hypocritical. Also, looking through all of his sources, I find no mention of drug use. Please do correct me con. Yes, his first source may imply the use of drugs, but again, it states “Do not cite”. Con’s summary: Con fails to read all of my argument, and provides sources that were not meant to be cited. His sources had no mention of drugs, although I request to con to correct me.