Drug Legalization

First I would like to reiterate that this is not about legalizing marijuana, but the legalizing of all drugs, including cocaine, heroin, and meth. Counter-Case I: The Role of Government Pro states that candy is bad for us and not otherwise useful, and thus drugs such as cocaine should also be acceptable. Even when excluding the overwhelming difference in addictiveness between candy and some drugs. {1/2} This is an apples to oranges comparison. The only comparison worth mention is that they are "bad for you" (a broad concept) and "serves no use". One simply can't compare candy, which is only truly dangerous in large amounts, to pure toxins such as meth. I should also point out that humans often accept a perfectly allowable thing, while denying the allowability of another, and that’s completely ok. To suddenly operate under the kind of reasoning Pro is using, every rule or decision must be made based off whether it conflicts with a prior decision, instead of the merits of it's particular situation. Regarding religion, we can have religious exemptions, without legalizing it mainstream. I’ll point out that past cultures have allowed and disallowed many things we are against today. Including allowing slavery, rape, and, on religious grounds, human sacrifice. {3} They also disallowed female suffrage, premarital sex, and, on religious ground, worship of other Gods. {4/5} Simply because prior religions and cultures allowed something, doesn't mean we should. Other cultures were likely not aware of how bad many of these drugs were. Pro wrongly states that I haven't argued about why drug use should be completely criminalized. Pro is trying to focus on the end part of the system, the consumer, whereas I am basing my attacks on the beginning, with the producer and distributer. The Producer of such drugs as Meth produce a toxin and sells it to those who are utterly addicted to it. To allow them to profit on such a horrible enterprise is utterly corrupt. Counter-Case II: History and the War of Drugs It is not my job here to detail (with such small character counts) how to improve the drug war. This debate is not about how to reform the system, it's effectively about whether or not to completely get rid of the war. Pro essentially says that allowing companies to basically enslave customers is better than reforming the system. Pro’s attempting to add more area onto my side than what was agreed upon in the Resolution. Pro falsely calls my claims a "strawman". Much of her position on the drug war is that since we can't "win" (we can never truly eliminate crime), we should just legalize. Again I put out that my arguments are not on the side of the consumer, but the producers who sell toxins like Meth. Pro further lies in saying she didn't argue about living conditions. She explicitly mentioned them being like "caged animals". Further she argued that I ignored her statistics, when in truth, I pointed out that her statistics hold little relevance. They are statistics that show us possible corruption and racism in the police force. She is simply trying to make the police/prisons look bad in hopes of making her side look better in comparison. Like pulling a kind of straw man against my side, since my side isn’t actually about the prison system. The statistics do not relate to if drugs are safe enough to legalize. Again I point out, this shows the need to fix the police force, not give up. Regarding the number of low-income prisoners, If most of your drug users are low-income, that is where the punishment will be seen most often. We shouldn't decide to become lenient to the crime simply because it hurts the person who performs the crime. That is what punishment is. It is there to discourage them from the action. We also shouldn’t refuse to punish people so our class/race/ethnicity/gender ratios look nicer. The problem with the rest of her argument is that it is a slippery slope. It assumes switching to fines would lead to a horrific increase in drug use, poverty, and unemployment (even though criminal offenders often do find work.) And to say that those who can afford the fines won't be deterred is a complete lie. Pro points out how "illegal" enterprises became legitimate after prohibition. In truth many of the businesses after prohibition were around before the prohibition and so never intended to be illegitimate, unlike the cartels of today who always intended to sell where the government couldn't regulate and tax. Many instances, such as Budweiser, had them staying fully legal, selling "near-beers" {6}. The illegal enterprises stayed illegal, and the original producers came back. Pro never explains why illegal cartels would go legal. I have explicitly shown how the mafia has refused to go legal after their biggest profit (alcohol) went away. Instead they went to other illegal trades. They will do the same here. She is simply being idealistic against what history has shown us. Legitimate enterprises will start up, but many of the illegal enterprises will still be illegal. They will switch to a new trade. And you cannot simply make something legal just so that people are no longer breaking the law. The cartel’s will just sell something else, and the WOD’s will continue with another name. That is one thing to remember, is that it’s more a war on Cartels then it is on drugs. Legalizing drugs will NOT end the conflict at all, making much of Pro’s case mute. Pro refers to that trillion dollar WOD, again ignoring that it's cost per year is not substantial. At little more than half a percent of government expense, the drug war isn’t nearly the expanse Pro makes it out to be {7, 8}. When you show the total cost over many years, it's going to look big. When Pro mentions her "320 billion" dollar count, she fails to point out that that is the overall profit of drug trafficking across the globe and the US cannot tax it all. The biggest problem about legalizing it for money is the implication of legalizing something just for the money. We should never decide to legalize something so dangerous as Meth just so we can make a little bit of money off of it. That is the essence of corrupt and immoral governance. Pro mentions that we could regulate it, but this defeats itself because it would create a black market for variations of drugs which are too strong to be legally sold under any rational regulations. Pro ignores that how police militarization is used does not change why it was started. It was performed to deal with increasingly well equipped opponents (Mafia, gangs, etc…) Is it right to use militarized equipment in this way? Possibly not. But that isn't the debate. Again Pro is arguing over the wrongful actions of police, which in no why reflects on whether we should make something legal. Counter-Case III: Health and Public Safety Pro corrupts my argument to make it sound worse than it is. I have explained earlier how humans don't operate on this basis, and how we over time determine some things to be allowable but not others, and how comparing candy to meth is comparing apples to oranges. The problem with the study she shows it that the second group of rats were made addicted by giving them only junk food. Pro then brings up how good choices can make things better, however the fact that there are still so many drunk drivers shows that people don't always make good choices, especially when under influence. Pro finishes this case by making another troubled comparison, comparing heroin to roller coasters. Counter-Case IV: Proposed Alternatives Pro says I didn't discredit her alternatives. I have entirely discredited her alternatives. Her case regarding cigarettes is only more proof that cigarettes should be illegal. Tanning beds are not addictive, and many want them illegal still. {9} Guns is not a good example given the immense desire among people to make them illegal. {10} Pro mentions the use of cocaine and heroin, ignoring that these are terrible substitutes for healthier drugs, {11} and are like using a shovel for a heart transplant. Plenty of users may not develop addictions to some drugs, but many drugs have incredible addiction rates. {12} Counter-Case V: My Argument Regarding the Drano example… Drano is legal, but selling it as a drink is not. I am not talking about the consumer, I'm talking about the dealer. Pro claims she has proven the cost of the war is not worth the war. I have shown that it hardly costs anything in relation to the revenue of the nation. Whether 0.5 percent of government expenditure is worth the cost of the war is for the voter to decide. But I say it is well worth not allowing people from selling toxins such as Meth. Pro cannot claim drug laws have not reduced drug usage in comparison to how we would have used without it being legal, because we cannot know how much we would use if it were legal, unless we legalize it. Legalizing the selling of toxin for intake just to find out is not acceptable. Sources Page: http://tinyurl.com...==Unitomic==