Drug Legalization

"They can still label the drugs, which is sufficient." That is not what i asked. I asked HOW the FDA could possibly ENFORCE the LABEL rules. "You're using examples where government has been right." Exactly. So the government has been right on many occasions, concerning what is right and wrong. No one is saying that the government has never been wrong. What we are saying, is that on the majority of almost every single aspect, the government has been right. Furthermore, by bringing up the Mafia and the Black Market, you are essentially making an argument to support that we should legalize something in order to stop a specific crime organizations profits. If this is the case, I fail to see how you could possibly disregard things like Weapons traffic or sex slave traffic, when the legalization of such actions would inevitably lead to the loss of power from the black market. "All authority should be questioned." Now youve contradicted yourself. Are you going to keep questioning the child pornography laws? Of course not. So clearly, there comes a point where you no longer have to question many aspects that the authority has placed as illegal. "A Wikipedia could easily be set up to interpret these names." If knowledge of drugs can be attained through 15 minutes of wikipedia, we would no longer need to spend 4 years in university, an additional 3 years in medical or pharmaceutical schools, and another 3-7 years in internship. Furthermore, this is regarding people who are actually knowledgable to use the internet. My parents cannot. Should we let them, as well as half the population which cannot or do not know how to use the internet, hang out to dry? Also, Library computer useage is not free. "The FDA could require a certain number of trials before a drug can remove the "Untested" label." Failed due to the fact that the FDA has no way of enforcing such a rule. The drugs would still end up on the counters, with the proper "Tested" label, while the FDA complains to the company. If you had answered my first question, we couldve addressed this. However, you chose not to. "when you're going to have to remove all of those labels and put the new" You dont have to. When a new cereal box cover comes out, the stores do not remove the boxes, ship them back to corporate, where they replace the covers. Instead, the old boxes are simply thrown out and replaced with the new ones. "Control over labels is all the FDA really needs." Again, enforcement issues arise. "If they realize that they made a bad choice, and want to be healed, we heal them." Many realize they made a bad choice after going through rehab. This is what an intervention is. What you are proposing, is letting them rot until they themselves realize theyve made a bad choice. Sorry, most cases do not work that way. "You have no source for where you checked." Gladly.(1) "We don't kill the druggies. That's what the drugs already do." By flooding the streets with legal drugs that the druggies would otherwise not be able to get their hands on, yes you are. This is exactly like flooding the streets with guns. Sure, youre not killing the people who were shot. But you gave them the means to do so, and therefore you, or your legislation to abolish gun registering and gun control laws, did. "Drugs have negative effects on health. Suicide is no longer necessary." Yet, before you state: "discover even more people who have suicidal traits" What i am saying, is that taking drugs is not suicide at all. Infact, more people die from Alchohol, than drugs.(2) Infact, more people die from sexual behaviors than drugs. If you are talking about a shortened lifespan, then i agree, people who do drugs, have a shorter lifespan.(3) But wait. Cigarrette smokers also have similar lifespans as well(4). So are all people who smoke, suicidal? Of course not. Your argument fails miserably. "The inability to recognize drugs as bad is what qualifies them as suicidal." As stated in this source(2), the death toll from car accidents is higher than drug related deaths. Are these people, who are unable to recognize driving as bad, qualify them as suicidal? of course not. Your argument fails again. "But they're still stupid. Which is suicidal in itself." Again, you are advocating that we let people die because they were stupid. That is not a sufficient reason to let someone die. We all do stupid things from time to time, no one is perfect. The consequence, however, should never be witholding treatment, or letting them die. Nor should it be to make it easier to do the stupid thing. "Drug use is probably still affected by some genetics." Youve brought that up twice, with no source. Really really hoping for something to be true, does not make it true. Your argument fails again. "The increase of IQ over time is an argument for natural selection." You failed to understand why the Increase in IQ over time is not an argument for natural selection, if you had chosen to read the books i stated in my source.(5) In it, it states that IQ can also change within the difference of the level of education given. The reason IQ has increased is because our educational standards have increased. The creation of Public schools which give all children access to knowledge, has increased our IQ. 100 years ago, when the great deppression gave way to few children being able to go to school, the IQ was low. Now its high. "If they can't understand English, how are they buying the drug?" Because they have ailments. Its hard to believe, but immigrants from other countries who dont speak english, still get headaches. "The action being banned there is driving." No, the action being banned isnt driving, it is driving UNDER THE INFLUENCE of drugs. "Government could ban drug use on certain streets if people complain." Actually, no. people have tried to complain about smoking in streets, but the government has yet to ban smoking in open areas. Your argument fails again. "The druggie could be prevented from doing his actions between when he leaves his own property and when he harms somebody" How could you prevent a druggie from doing anything once hes outside his house with any sort of reliable consistency? Are you saying we should place a cop at every doorstep, in case a druggie comes out and tries to harm someone? What you are proposing is absurd. "The government still has the power to ban drugs on public property." Again, tried with Tobacco. Failed. "Druggies are usually either loners or losers." Oh, well nice generalization. Are you aware that most drugs such as Ecstasy are used as a sexual enhancement drug at clubs and parties? Clearly they are loners and losers, cause theyre partying and having lots of sex! "Such actions would not go unnoticed." Unnoticed by who? Cops cannot stand at your doorway 24/7. "involves abuse of minors." And what about the parents who take drugs and abuse their children because of it? "He could easily be stopped before he reached the school. " Again, by who? "Teachers should be allowed to carry handguns." My opponent has now argued to bring guns to elementary schools. Will my opponents brilliant ideas on how to fix societies problems, ever end? Furthermore, you didnt answer my question. I asked who you would HOLD LIABLE. Not what you should do to prevent it. In conclusion, my opponent has provided poor arguments that have failed countless times, refused to adress my arguments, and proposed absurd ideas in order to limit the harmful aspect of drugs to society. In other words, to constrict Drugs to the point of being banned at almost every location. Vote Con. Source: 1. http://www.healthieryou.com... 2. http://drugwarfacts.org... 3. http://wiki.answers.com... 4. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov... 5.2 Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L. (1985). Environme