All 'drugs' should be made legal and be controlled by the state.

I would like to first note most of my opponents arguments are bare assertions, opinions, or unverifiable arguments. 1. How the drug war started and the statsIt does not matter how the drug war started, why? Because many good causes are started by unfavorable means. The only relevant argument in this section is the argument that the statistics are flawed. My opponent argue it is impossible to calculate the amount of drug users in an overall scenario. Mainly because many stay underground or never report their usage, and the only samples we have are ones in rehab or ones in jail. But the polling needn't be direct, though. All it needs to be is based on proxies that can calculate fairly accurate estimations which are widely accepted amongst scholars in the debate. Many proxies for the data include arrest rates, anonymous polling, census socioeconomic factors, drug costs (a good proxy for consumption), and FBI uniform crime reports. Experts agree that these are good proxies for calculating drug use [1]. So my opponent arguing it is impossible is a lie. My opponent continues the bare assertions saying being against the war on drugs means we have been mislead by politicians that are trying to gain votes. If they where looking to gain votes, however, they would support the legalization of marijuana as 50% of the populace is in favor of legalization, 46% opposed [2]. As we can see based on poll data my opponents political argument fails. 2. Defending C1My opponent is sticking to the assertion that drug statistics are flawed. Again he needs to prove that the proxies used are inherintley flawed before arguing this. Further he also concedes even if drugs where legal the statistics would be flawed as all of the stats I showed where in legalization scenarios. My opponents rebuttal here is, actually, all bare assertion. He says there is no good data, and that the government does not control drugs. Using DEA seizures as a proxy it has been shown that supply reduction is falling and falling significantly. They have been using the lower supply and the increased control to use price and make drugs to expensive for most americans, which is a sucess [3]. My opponent has only been insulting my sources, instead of using other ones. Even if we assume my sources are faulty with no alternative offered by my opponent I am the only one with any data on the subject, and not just bare assertions. My opponent then says almost all adults use alcohol. Yes, they do. That's a great example to prove my case. This shows legal drugs have significantly higher usage rates. During prohibition alcohol usage rates where much lower then they are today [4]. And my opponent never refuted the deterrence theory, it makes sense as it means the costs of getting drugs is much higher and will deter some people. The logic means prohibition will deter some people from purchasing many drugs. Unless my opponent can refute deterrence theory the point stands and the logic supports the statistics. My opponent then argues my argument on more cost to drugs (more money cost, not cost in jail time) actually shows my opponent has not looked into how expensive drugs are. For example marijuana is very expensive due to the drug war. My opponent claims if the state taxes it that the state could make it as expensive as in prohibitionary times. But is this logical? No, not at all. But as stated last round prohibition makes drugs 3-9 times more expensive, meaning we would have taxes of 300-900% on these drugs to equate the same cost that it is in prohibition. The highest tax on tobacco, for example, is over $3 [5]. All alcohol taxes, like tobacco taxes, do not even reach 100% [6]. Therefore we see that my opponents cost argument is very illogical, and laughable. Having a 400% tax, for example, would make the black market exist and continue at the same strength it is today. As we can see it is illogical to say taxation or regulation would make the price the same as its price during prohibition. My opponent then foolishly says using data from the 19th century should be discarded. Why? It accurately shows deterrence theory working amongst peoples physiology, it also ignores the statistics brought up with Alaska. He is cherry picking my stance in order to look like he is chipping at my statistics, when he is not. 3. Defending C2My opponent claims prohibition would create black markets, but this only works if he can prove legalization would end markets. We can assume a minimum age for buying drugs would be used, likely twenty one to be consistent with the alcohol age. People under that age consume the most drugs in the country, therefore the black market would still thrive amongst the lower population [7]. We also see that if we take my opponents C1 argument to heart, the tax of 300-900% would raise prices so much it would create a black market, as all high taxes on products have the ability to create. Therefore my opponents argument is not convincing, and the controlling of drugs by the state would increase crime. My opponent criticizes me for a 19th century source then cites Abraham Lincolon, and that's, in my opinion, is very funny moment. And I refer to my statements above which shatter Lincolns quote. As we can see, C2 is logical as I have proven legalization raises crime, and that cartels would exist still. So lets build on C2 a bit. "Amsterdam’s experience is already being duplicated in California under the current medical marijuana statute. In Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would likely spark an even more acute increase in crime."[8]Legalization increases crime, its a logical statement.Conclusions:Statistics and proven and widely accepted theories > My opponents bare assertions Vote CON.Sources:[1] Mary-Lynn Brecht, M. Douglas Anglin, and Tzu-Hui Lu "Estimating Drug Use Prevalence Among Arrestees Using ADAM Data: An Application of a Logistic Regression Synthetic Estimation Procedure" Department of Justice, (2003). [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] http://www.justice.gov...[4] http://www.sarnia.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.ttb.gov...[8] http://www.heritage.org...[7] http://www.justice.gov...