Psychedelic drugs should be legalized for recreational use.

I presented no arguments in previous rounds because the burden of proof rested on Pro in this debate, as she is arguing for a change in the status quo. I will not present any arguments in this round either. Instead, I shall provide some brief rebuttals and a summary of the debate.On psychological dependenceMy opponent cited cases of strange addictions from the humor site, Cracked.com. Pro went on to say that this was evidence that humans can become psychologically dependent upon almost anything, and that therefore making a substance illegal because it carries a risk of dependence is ludicrous.However, the APA Dictionary of Psychology defines psychological dependence as "dependence on a psychoactive substance for the reinforcement it provides."(1) The term "psychological dependence" can, therefore, only be used when speaking of the effects of psychoactive drugs such as LSD.On comparing hallucinogens to methamphetaminesI would like to restate my previous assertion, that proving that one dangerous illegal drug is less dangerous than another does not mean that it should be legalized. If anything, it is simply an argument for why the more dangerous one should stay illegal.My opponent provided no evidence to back up her claim that the legality of a drug does not deter people from its use.On the immediate and long-term dangers of hallucinogensWhile it is obviously true, as my opponent said, that not every user of psychoactive drugs will suffer from side effects, this does not mean that there is no risk. Unfortunately, whether or not one will suffer from said effects is highly unpredictable, difficult to determine even for those with medical training.(2) Because of this, using hallucinogens is like playing a game of Russian roulette.I did not try to refute my opponent's statement that Abilify can cause neurological damage because I do not doubt that it is true. However, simply because a prescription drug with known health benefits has certain side effects is no reason to legalize a drug for recreational use. If anything, it is simply an argument for setting higher standards for the pharmaceutical industry. My opponent is also incorrect in her belief that hallucinogens carry no long-term health risks. Hallucinogens cause such long-term side effects as: Memory loss Difficulty in speaking Impaired thinking ability Depression Unwanted weight loss Mood swings Anxiety Flashbacks Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD) -- trailing images, spots, auras, and other visual disturbances; depression, or panic attacks; long after use or perhaps permanent Increased risk of developing schizophrenia or psychotic episodes(3) Pro tried to argue that prescription drugs can cause death, however she failed to provide an example of a prescription drug that can be immediately fatal. And once again, a deadly prescription drug would not be evidence for the need to legalize psychoactive drugs, but for the need to impose stricter regulations on the pharmaceutics industry. As for whether or not hallucinogens cause mental illness, we know of at least one meal disorder that is caused directly by the use of psychoactive drugs: HPPD.(4) Summary To sum up this debate, my opponent began by arguing that hallucinogens are "physically harmless and not addictive." However, when presented with evidence to the contrary, Pro admitted that psychoactive drugs can be lethal and that users can develop a psychological dependence upon them. She then changed her argument, saying that psychoactive drugs should be legalized because although they are dangerous, they are no more dangerous than certain prescription drugs (a statement she failed to properly support with evidence). I would like to close by thanking Pro for being a challenging debate partner. Best of luck. Sources 1. VandenBos, Gary R. APA Dictionary of Psychology. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2007. 2. http://www0.health.nsw.gov.au... 3. http://www.intheknowzone.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...