Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin It would appear as if Con wishes to criminalize MDMA, tobacco and marijuana based on one factor alone: It is potentially harmful to consumers. I have submitted to the reality that these drugs, when abused, can lead to health risks that may harm an individual. However, my stance in this debate has been that the risk of losing the essential liberties and freedom that this country was founded upon poses an even greater risk to society. Moreover, as I've already pointed out thus far in the debate, legalizing or decriminalizing these drugs has various benefits including but not limited to positive medical use; personal satisfaction; cost benefits and efforts towards implementing a more democratic and fair government. In the Comment Section of this debate, my opponent asked me what I thought the purpose of government was. Again, I maintain that the government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people. The Declaration of the Rights of Man - the document that spurred the American Revolution - notes that liberty is granting people the freedom to do anything they please so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence, notes in his infamous document that people have the right to pursue happiness. Perhaps what many people don't know is that in its original draft, Jefferson's wording originally stated that people had the right to pursue property (but later changed it because 'happiness' sounded better). My point here is that one's self belongs to them and them alone; you are your own property. So, if one wishes to pollute their body with toxins or other substances - even if it has detrimental effects - one has the right to do that regardless of the personal consequences. For instance, if I wanted to throw a party and trash your house, I couldn't because that would be a violation of your property i.e. your rights. However, if I wanted to throw a party and trash MY house, that would be perfectly within my right to do so, and to prohibit me from exhausting this right is actually a violation of my rights. This is the real issue at hand. I could spend countless amounts of characters illustrating why Con's statistics - especially regarding marijuana and MDMA - are HIGHLY manipulated and inaccurate! For instance, the notion that smoking pot could actually induce schizophrenia on an individual is ludicrous. Do you know how much pot you'd have to smoke in order to have serious harmful effects?! The reality is that schizophrenia is a mental illness caused by biological factors, genetics and chemicals in the brain that have nothing to do with marijuana. In fact, my source notes that these so-called studies making these ridiculous claims were FALSE and notes: "Empirical data did not support the investigators' hypothesis that smoking marijuana was associated with increased rates of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses among the general public — a fact that even the authors begrudgingly admitted when they declared, 'Projected trends for schizophrenia incidence have not paralleled trends in cannabis use over time.' The expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. … This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence" [1]. Similarly, Con has completely misrepresented the so-called facts about MDMA that he provided in the previous rounds. In reading up on HIS OWN SOURCES, here's what I've found: 1. Based on a review of the social and health harms of ecstasy, the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) recommends that the government reclassify the drug from Class A to Class B... In other words, research shows that MDMA's potential harm or threat should be LOWER than what was previously considered. 2. By repeating the tests administered to ecstasy users, researchers found SUBTLE changes to cell architecture and decreased blood flow in some brain regions. 3. Any "brain damage" caused by MDMA is almost insignificant, AND, research does not prove its permanent! Again, I found these facts from checking up on Con's own sources (At least I won one point in this debate!). I won't cite them for lack of character space, but they're under MDMA in his R2 argument. That said, I won't bother wasting more space discussing the other harms that these drugs and tobacco may cause. Instead, I'll re-visit my point that the so-called dangers of these drugs are often exaggerated in an attempt to promote a socially conservative agenda, and to gain popular support for the politicians who make laws. Remember that the government isn't a perfect, all-knowing entity; it is a system based on the CONCEPT of liberty and composed of flawed individuals who do not always do the right thing. Thomas Jefferson once said, "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Con notes that the government should not fear the people; that doing so would enable a mob mentality and instead that there should be mutual respect between the two. However, the government is COMPOSED of the people (i.e. democracy), and its supposed to protect them - their rights and wants. As we can see, people like to experiment with recreational drugs in America. First it was peyote. Then tobacco (many farmers still make their living off this product). Next, hash and marijuana. Alcohol. Etc. Con writes, "It could easily be argued by me that, because tobacco carries a definite risk of self-harm, jeopardizing both life and all subsequent rights, that these current legal standards ought to be repealed." Oh? I encourage Con to attempt at arguing that tobacco should become illegal. The reality is that this would NEVER be acceptable; remember what happened during Prohibition when the government attempted to outlaw alcohol? What became known as the "Noble Experiment' failed miserably. Instead, it increased gang membership and violence significantly (see: Al Capone) and the people simply did not tolerate it. There are about 45 million people who smoke cigarettes in the U.S. Con would have the burden of proving that the government has the right to outlaw anything that causes self-harm, instead of honoring the individual liberties of the people - the same liberties that this country was founded on. Con also says, "Pro never gives us any legitimate reason to impose these standards on MDMA and tobacco beyond expansion of the status quo over other drugs." I don't really understand this assertion. My point was that just as there are laws to outlaw second-hand tobacco smoke (so people don't suffer as a result of other people's choices), the same should apply to marijuana smoke. And obviously, anyone who wishes to refrain from taking MDMA will do so. Additionally, Con is right in stating that alcohol consumption is irrelevant to this debate. However, what IS relevant to this debate are the context of the laws and what ought to be legal or ought not to be legal. My point is that just as alcohol can be dangerous and remains legal, so too can (and should) other things including - BUT NOT LIMITED TO - alcohol consumption, sun bathing, pollutants, stress, lack of sleep, etc. I'm out of character space for now, but as I've pointed out, liberty should trump potential harm! Con has yet to explain or prove otherwise. Furthermore, there ARE indisputable benefits to these drugs - including medical and costs - which in consideration with others I've mentioned in R2 make my advocacy for legalization still stand. Source: [1] http://mentalhealth.about.com...