Victimless crime laws should be repealed.

1. My point is not to prove that I can eliminate usage. My point is that drug legalization is more beneficial than criminalization. The Frasier Institute found that marijuana legalization (only one drug) in Canada (a smaller nation) would generate $2 billion in tax revenue. Imagine if all drugs were legal and in our larger nation what revenue could be created. (. http://economics.about.com...) 2. The government has spent almost $24 billion on drug enforcement this year. (. http://www.drugsense.org...) 3. If the police cannot control a business from invading another business, because the business is illegal, there will be business trying to invade other businesses. This is evident in our nation's infamous drug wars. If drugs were legal, then drug salesmen would build stores and not be attacked and have to kill people to keep their business. 4. PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK! When Alcohol prohibition happened in our country, alcohol consumption and deaths increased dramatically. Most houses made their own alcoholic beverages or bought them illegally. (. http://www.druglibrary.org...) Amsterdam proves that usage is lowered when prohibition is lifted. Marijuana usage was halved in Amsterdam after legalization. (www. drugwarfacts. com: US Dept. Health) Drug use, except opium, has increased in all drugs since prohibition (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. It is unconstitutional! Alcohol prohibition required an amendment to the Constitution because it violated state's rights and the pursuit of happiness. Each state should have the right to decide whether to criminalize drugs. And it violates the right to pursue happiness. It also undermines the restriction of government power, which was the intention of the Constitution, which mentions hte word "not" 22 times to restrict government. I. Your Alcohol Abuse, Liver Cirrhosis, Addiction Related Hospital Admittance Arguments a. These statistics cannot be trusted. They are the same as from Joseph Califano, a ruthless prohibition supporter who lied to the Supreme Court and was banned from speaking to the New York legislature for lying about statistics. You do not cite Califano, however, Wayne Roques (your source) was in the same field as Califano and used the same statistics. These statistics are not scientifically based. (. http://www2.potsdam.edu...) b. Alcohol abuse, consumption, and deaths dramatically increased during prohibition. Alcohol prohibition also raised drinking among children so much so that is referred to as an epidemic. In fact, during prohibition, New York City's alcohol related deaths multiplied by 5 times. Prohibition failed! They repealed it 13 years later! It did not work! (. http://www.druglibrary.org...) II. Suicide Reduced As Well a. There are no statistics that say this. I've traced your source: Sarnia, an anti-drug site. However, the source is a USA TODAY editorial, not fact. I cannot find these statistics anywhere. However, crime went up dramatically and alcohol related deaths. Those are facts. These figures do not lie, as I am sure my opponent will attempt to discredit them I will leave a full list of references at the end of this post. III. The US tried legalization by passing out drugs to addicts and tried to addicts, this failed. a. This is completely different because drug legalization never took place. The study was not to see if drug legalization would work but rather if they could control their behavior. This would be impossible in a world where drugs were illegal. In a world where drugs are legal and regulated (much like prostitution in Las Vegas) drugs will be safer because children will not have access, stores can be held responsible for not selling to addicts, marijuana will not be secretly laced with cocaine, and people can be arrested for being addicted to hard drugs instead of selling (which creates gang drug wars). IV. When California decriminalized marijuana, DUIs rose a. I cannot find this statistic anywhere on the Internet, like many of your other statistics. b. The number of marijuana arrests, including felonies, immediately dropped saving the California taxpayers an estimated $100 million per year. (. http://www.canorml.org...) V. Most felons violated other crimes to land them in jail, non drug related. a. I could imagine. Drugs leads to gangs when illegal which leads to violence and other crimes. Drugs when illegal cause gangs to fight for territory and kill people. Also, drugs when unregulated have addicts who commit crimes. VI. Drugs will be cheaper when legal, which will lead to more violence a. In Amsterdam, homicide was reduced by 5 times, this is fact and has been proven, unlike your theory. VII. No evidence that taxing hard drugs would bolster revenue any more than alcohol and tobacco currently do. 3.3% of USA budget goes to criminal justice. 12% of that half goes to drug law enforcement. a. It is obvious. Americans are paying a lot in taxes. The taxes from marijuana alone could fund public transportation improvements or something good. It could most certainly ease the pain to tax drugs. This is common sense. The Frasier Institute estimates Canada could benefit from $2billion in revenue of marijuana alone. (. http://economics.about.com...) VIII. No history evidence for hard drug legalization. a. Common sense tells us that it will work. There is evidence that current hard drug criminalization fails. It is costly and causes gang wars. X. China legalized opium and failed, Egypt did too with cocaine, Thailand, Iran, Sweden a. America can regulate it. It will save money and stop drug wars. China was forced to legalize and did not fully legalize, which created gangs. These all failed due to partial legalization, which creates gangs, or due to lack of regulation. My argument is not that we can eliminate usage, but rather that it is more beneficial to legalize drugs. The fact is- drug criminalization is ineffective. XI. Amsterdam's 7000 heroin addicts are reported to be responsible for over 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam now has a burglary rate 200 percent higher than Newark New Jersey. a. I can see this. Addicts are bad news. But when salesmen are responsible not to sell drugs to addicts because of regulation, these addicts significantly decrease. b. Amsterdam heroin use is .4% compared to America's 1.4%. (www. drugwarfacts. com: US Dept. Health) XII. Drug problems have forced the city to double its police force. a. If they were legal, this would not be the case. Amsterdam crime reduced with legalization. Incarceration was decreased by 7 times. (www. drugwarfacts. com: US Dept. Health) XIII. Marijuana use rose 250%, Shootings rose 40 percent, Car theft rose 62 percent, Armed Robbery rose 69 percent a. This is a lie. Marijuana use lowered by half according the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. Crime and homicide decreased by an average of 6 times according to the World Prison Population List (fifth edition), the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, and International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001. I don't know what source you're using, but it's wrong. (www. drugwarfacts. org/thenethe) XIV. UK and Sweden tried this and addiction raised a. This was partial legalization, which fails. XV. Some cities oppose drugs a. There is always dissent. XVI. Middle East has harsher drug penalties and less crime a. Yes. But American cannot offer these harsh penalties due to the 8th Amendment so it needs a good alternative. XVII. Chicago, D. C, Philadelphia has a lot of abused children whose parents did drugs a. This is in an environment where drugs are legal. Nobody is saying drugs are good. .. Vote PRO! Look at my first points.