Drug Legalization

My opponent's argument follows these steps: P1: Autonomy should be valued P2: Legalizing drugs expands autonomy C: Drugs should be legalized In my case, I will demonstrate why I believe this syllogism to be incorrect. = Freedom = In a just government, a good and virtuous society is desired. The state wishes to create a community that is moral and respective as to not infringe on others' freedoms. However, if the government wants a moral society, it cannot grant its people such rights that destroy the good that could be exist which would make a society moral. What is good is pursued as what is just, and what is bad is unjust. The issue with my opponent's case is that it has no concern for what people actually choose. It assumes that the ability to use their agency extensively is what constitutes a moral society, since that is the good that a just government seeks. In reality, human nature is flawed, and freedom is frequently used badly. By giving people more of the ability to choose, we living indifferent to virtue. Since virtue is a moral good that is essential to a valued society, then a just government ought to esteem virtue as the ultimate value, not agency. Freedom comes into conflict with virtue, and when a moral society is valued, then virtue is what should be esteemed over agency. This is not to say that agency should never be esteemed as a value. It is important to individual freedoms, but it is often limited in order to make room for the freedom to enjoy a moral society. Certain laws exist to prohibit crime because the government values a virtuous society, not one in which injustices are committed such as theft and murder. If we want to establish a society with fewer injustices, it is in the government's best interest to not legalize the use of drugs for the purpose of preventing immoral uses of them. By granting certain freedoms to people, they are granted the ability to abuse their freedoms and be a detriment to the community, which contradicts a moral society. = Autonomy = My opponent states, "denying the right of individuals to use them is to deny the right to choose for themselves". This is the main idea of the case of the Pro side, but it is missing a crucial piece of information: government prohibition does not restrict one's right to choose. It simply sets consequences for choosing in a certain way. If drugs are illegal, that doesn't mean that an individual is barred the right to use them, it means that to do so would inflict a degree of punishment upon them. This is true for all laws. Everyone has the capability to commit crime, and their freedom to choose to do it is never barred. They have always had that agency, but if they were to use it in an immoral way, thus hurting society, then consequences are set upon them to balance the scale of justice and to undo the damage that was inflicted. One reason that a just government exists is to influence human behavior. Obviously the consequences of the laws set on certain offenses deter crime, and without it there would be anarchy. If state laws were never enforced, and certain actions never made illegal, then more people would abuse their agency and would commit crime. The existence of these punishments keep some crimes at bay, and the same logic can be applied to drug legalization. = Society = My opponent and I should agree that drugs are harmful, intoxicating, and hurtful to one's health. For recreational purposes only, one cannot see how drugs could possibly help society and bring some kind of benefit. Pro's argument isn't that it does bring a benefit, but rather that its ability to be used is an affirmative reason to legalize its use. After all, it's agency, right? Well, as I've stated before, this agency can and will be used detrimentally. No good can come of it, but only bad. People can become intoxicated by drugs and can do things to hurt others or themselves while under the influence of it. When this happens, they lose their ability to choose. They are carried off in a tornado and cannot "value" the direction they are moving. Such is true of car accidents when one is under the influence of drugs. Perhaps one may be hurting him or herself, but there's no standard for determining whether they are doing so out of their own free will. They may be harming themselves without the ability to control it. Or maybe they injure others without their consent. These possibilities alone entirely negate the agency argument, because agency could be abused in such a manner where it no longer can be used. If my opponent is arguing for the entire legalization of drugs based on the principle of freedom alone, then it cannot hold up. In sum, a just government ought not to legalize drugs for the welfare of its people. Agency isn't abused, but still exists for all aspects of choice regardless of consequences. A virtuous society is one in which moral choices are allowed to be made to the extent that it does not cause a net harm to the community.