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

History Many things happen in immoral or evil ways that actually have good outcomes/future means to the process. For example, every law we hear and support (most of us support some type of law) is supported by lobbyists and is passed by them. It’s not the drug war that’s corrupt, rather the political systems evolution towards this standard. Statistics My opponent has argued using governmental data is “flawed” when it comes to the drug war debate. Now even if we assume my opponent is correct, this does little to refute my case as much of my data comes from external sources. For example, much of the data for usage statistics and crime (my whole case) had much of its data from non-governmental sources [1][2]. Further, much of the data in the drug legalization debate is not governmentally backed [3]. So even if we assume my opponents point is correct, we cannot assume my points are invalid as I used outside sources. Now, although there is bias amongst governmental officials science must be able to do a few things: 1) Facts fit the theory (on balance), 2) must account for previous experience, 3) be able to predict phenomena, and 4) must have large amounts of proof [4]. (1) Facts fit the theory This is actually a huge part of a theory which is needed to prove X or Y, and although drug legalization is gaining support under the younger generation there are large amounts of statistical data which, on balance, support drug prohibition [1]. (2) Must account for previous experience Much of my case relies on previous experience, if anything most of it does. Much of my crime and usage statistics come from previous experiments in California, Alaska, and much of Europe as examples [1][5]. (3) Predict phenomena All of these statistics predict that legalization would lead to increase in crime and increase in usage rates. And these statistics have successfully predicted many of these happenings [1][2][3]. Drug legalization in countries highly cited by activists as proof of legalization, notably Portugal, is touted a failure by many. Crime involving drug use as increases as well as drug usage rates. For example, the increased consumption of cocaine in Portugal has been “extremely problematic” and the cannabis increase has lead to a lazier workforce [6]. As we can see, the statistics have predicted phenomena. (4) Having large amounts of proof As I have shown, using direct evidence from countries in Europe and various legalization experiments there is a large amount of proof based on theories as well as direct observations proving legalization would not benefit America [1]. --As we can see the drug prohibition stance fits the definitions of a valid scientific fact/theory, and cannot be criticized. Taxes My opponent cites many statistics, mainly from wikipedia and pro legalization sources which do not cite much data. Based on realistic evidence, marijuana legalization would not even raise as much money as many of those “statistics” are more predictions rather then direct observations. And many of the statistics assume that the economic benefits would mean at least one billion marijuana cigarettes would be smoked in each large state (California, Texas etc). And that taxation would be 400-500%. This is highly unrealistic, and in reality false. Further, growing marijuana is cheap and the taxes would lead many people to grow it themselves, and therefore hindering the economic revenue the states bring in [5]. Further, there are many social costs that involve economics that would cause net decrease in economic profit. For example, current drug use (not the drug war/black market) costs 160 billion a year in social costs (ER costs, violence etc.) But at the same time estimates say cocaine use would go from 2 – 20 million addicts, therefore raising the overall social costs by millions of dollars [7]. Further, 13 billion dollars of profit are generated from alcohol and tobacco, but they cost 100 billion dollars in social costs. There is little evidence drug legalization would have a benefit, on the contrary data proves that the social costs will overall hurt the economy and outweigh any potential tax benefit [1]. Further, the taxes may have adverse effects on crime. For example, taxes on these items raises over time with reckless government spending. So what many of these local governments do is attack the low hanging fruit – tobacco. They raise those costs, which have been observed to create a black market [8]. Overall, taxation would a) have no effect on the economy, b) may have the opposite effect, and c) possibly create a black market which we are battling now. Black markets My opponent has conceded legalization would not end the black market as taxation would still exist and many drugs, like marijuana, would be cheaper to just grow on your own or get from black market vendors. My opponent then says the black market is the creator of all problems therefore the point stands. What? This means the creator of all these problems would still exist. Black markets do not disappear during legalization scenarios. Marijuana v. Alcohol (1) The debate title reads “all” drugs, therefore this objection is irrelevant (2) My opponent criticizes a source which, by any logical person, is a accurate source. Why? Easy: it cites references to its opinions. I am a bias source, yet what I say is as credible as my evidence. Same with the heritage foundation. As we can see, they have 56 cited references most to academic journals, neutral sources, or RAND studies. All of what they say is not “discredited”, if anything it is highly accurate as it is written by a legal expert as well as having exceptional resources [5]. In sum: n This objection is irrelevant to the debate as it does not attack the all drugs hypothesis n The heritage foundation is a good source Conclusions: As we can see, the statistics put forward are credible (when all put together), and many of my opponent’s objections are self-defeating, illogical, or irrelevant. It is clear that “all” drugs should not be legalized, and that a vote for PRO would be just and appreciated. [1] http://www.sarnia.com... [2] http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu... [3] http://www.city-journal.org... [4] http://www.paulmacrae.com... [5] http://www.heritage.org... [6] Manuel Pinto Coelho “Drugs: The Portuguese Fallacy and the Absurd Medicalization of Europe” Asociación para um Portugaul livre de drogas, (2007) [7] http://www.justice.gov... [8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...