The state should not pass legislation regarding drugs.

Descriptive/NormativeThis is basically a big red herring. I set forward in the beginning that the resolution isn't a moral imperative, and that's that. Basically, we can use moral arguments to defend our positions (contrary to Con's claim that I "demand" that he should only use non-moral arguments, which you can read my R1 to disprove), but it's not necessary.ValuesCon was using both a straw man and a slippery slope: the former by trying to characterize my argument as supporting "absolute" freedom, the latter by claiming that, to be consistent, I would also have to support freedom to harm others (e.g. murder, rape, theft). I never made the "absolute freedom" claim, which makes the latter claim irrelevant.As far as the "plurality" argument, my advocating freedom--freedom from coercion--makes the advocacy of other values irrelevant, because either they center around preventing coercion of others (which can be addressed under freedom), or personal taste, e.g. premarital sex or drug use, which are questions of personal autonomy. The fact that I personally advocate multiple values, for example, does not imply that I should advocate legally imposing them on everyone else.Self-owneship v. AddictionActually, it does follow that contra-self-ownership arguments are self-defeating. Con is trying to argue that the government should be able to use force against me without my consent. It's similar to me making an argument that Con should be a slave. I cannot argue with him that he should be a slave, because the act of arguing presupposes his self-ownership and free agency. Should he agree to be a "slave", he would not actually be a slave. Similarly, that he is trying to argue (which requires presupposing freedom and the need for consent for the government to take action without peoples' consent is self-contradicting.Further, he tries to make this argument about drug use reducing agency. Problem is, he's approaching this retrospectively, which is problematic. If I enter into an employment contract, they may stipulate that I can't drink, that I can't work anywhere else, that I have to work for low wages, etc. It may be the case that consenting to the terms of this contract really binds me; however, we cannot say that my agency is lessened simply because I look back on the decision, realize I screwed up, and complain that "this isn't what I wanted!" Meth use promises some utility to the user at the expense of something else--that's opportunity cost, Econ 101. In using meth, I know the risks, and I essentially agree to accept them (which it is no one's right to do but my own) by using. By Con's argument, we would have to ban basically everything, since all actions necessarily involve an opportunity cost (i.e. a limit on one's future options, which Con construes as "losing self-control". Plus, since the high from smoking marijuana (which Con admitted that he's okay with) can be construed as compromising judgment, and therefore compromsing agency. It seems that Con runs into a contradiction with this sort of advocacy.Con seems to conflate self-inflicted losses of agency (like heavy meth use) with external losses (like being mugged, killed, or legally bound by the state). He tries to construe it as one party exercising control over another (ergo slavery), but meth isn't a conscious second party exercising control over anyone. It's like me inviting you into my airplane with the promise that I won't push you out once we reach 20,000 feet. Though it obviously limits what I can do on my property, I've given such options up by my own agreement, much as meth users cede total guarantee of future agency by engaging in meth use.The rest of Con's argument here basically centers on "cigarettes are addictive, and Big Tobacco is bad", which aren't arguments for legislation. In the first place, addictiveness doesn't justify a legal ban any more than dependency on paid wages (or on sleep aids, to keep the drug theme) justifies forcing the employer to retain an employee or forcing consumers to ration their Ambien. In the second place, "bad companies are bad, good regulation is good" isn't an argument, since it fails to account for things like tobacco lobbies and regulaory capture, which tend to be extremely common in the biggest industries (USDA and agriculture, particularly corn, FDA/EPA and bottled water, the ICC and railroads). His sources here, like many of his sources in the last round, shouldn't really grant him points because they're essentially supporting red herring arguments. If companies are defrauding consumers so badly, sue them for fraud. No force needs to be initiated.The "Libertarian Solution"Addressing his concerns,(1) It doesn't involve coercion if the terms of the contract stipulate mandatory rehab in the case of broken contract. The individual using drugs would be acting aggressively (fraud, specifically) by accepting payment and employment from a company while breaking his contractual agreement not to use drugs.(2) This isn't an argument--just a warning that things might be difficult if we have to change contract law. He basically argues that monetary compensation is insufficient (insufficient for what, first question); however, I can grant this without it damaging my argument. I specifically stated that contracts can include things like drug testing, which companies often do under health and safety policies [http://www.direct.gov.uk...], and can include stipulations like drug classes and rehab upon discovery of an employee using drugs. The point is that these things can be integrated into contracts, which renders government totally unnecessary.Further, he argues incentives, and basically points out that the cost to an addict of monetary loss is less than the utility gained from getting a fix. Problem is, his study doesn't really demonstrate anything significant. The current culture fosters a low time preference [http://wiki.mises.org...] anyway, and it's been repeatedly proven that people tend to prefer immediate gratification to long-term rewards [http://www.tinbergen.nl...]. That addicts had a lower time preference than normal is not indicative that state action is necessary.Drops1. Con never really addresses argumentation ethics in detail. He pays it a passing glance near the beginning of his rebuttal by talking about how we should violate self-ownership to prevent people from giving it up (which I've already refuted above), but it's otherwise untouched.2. Con never hit the WOD/economic analysis.3. Con never addressed the othe objections presented in Section 2 of On Meth and Society (of importance is my analysis on the beginning about drugs and committing violent crimes). Additionally, to expand on my criticism of his meth/violence recidivism study, I want to point out that they only controlled for self-reported violence, general recidivism, and drug trade involvement [full study: http://www.sagepub.com...]. They didn't control for things like personality traits (e.g. impulsiveness) which could affect meth use and violence, which puts the validity of the study with respect to his argument into question (as the study cites methodological issues to explain an inconsistency between self-reported violent crime rates and violent crime arrests, based on variables for which they controlled, like drug trade involvement).Good luck to Con in R3.