Recreational Drugs should be Legalized in the United States of America

My opponent once again fails to provide any other argument and continues with liberty. He claims: "You see ultimately this debate is philosophically and logically about liberty, so I can't stop discussing it." This is false the issue of the debate and simultaneously the core value is LAW; this is because it is stated in the resolution and because changing it is the reason of the debate. This is my opponent's second excuse so far for not providing another contention that is also proved wrong. His first one was in Round 2 when he claimed that he had no time (!). Therefore, my opponent had no logical reason to not provide more and stronger contentions. Next, my opponent once strays from the topic by explaining what he believes about government. I remind him that this is irrelevant to drug legalization. He concludes his first paragraph point with a quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - We all understand that Benjamin Franklin meant that PERSONAL safety can be given up and definitely not the safety of OTHERS, this is because a human has absolutely no right, under any circumstances, to give away another's liberty without his consent! Therefore, this point better supports the negative than the affirmative. "If you will notice my opponent would like to purchase a little safety by giving up some liberty. He says MAY cause. This is the first violation of Liberty....Supposed Safety. This doesn't sound so bad until other people start using the government to provide them safety from "possible" not "actual" acts and everything just spirals out of control." - Yes I do say ‘may' and this is intentional. I used the word may because it would be terribly wrong, if I said that it would ALWAYS cause the user to commit crimes , because it would be a generalization, but the fact that it SOME users would commit crimes while under the influence of drugs is certain. Other than this, my opponent fails to counter my argument and I extend to the 4th Round. To add to his point he quotes Hitler: "The masses are far more likely to believe a big lie than several small ones." My opponent is either making an irrelevant point or he is saying that the fact that certain users would commit crimes while under the influence of drugs is a big lie, without explaining why he thinks so (!). I am neither trying to buy liberty through safety, as my opponent claims, nor am I lying. I am simply making a point which he fails to refute. "At this point in the debate there is no MAY about it now it is INEVITABLY and WILL happen. The only thing that opposes liberty is fear. Attempts to criminalize and regulate drugs and alcohol have repeatedly failed as my opponent has admitted with alcohol and cigarettes. This is the only way to trick people into being overly regulated; lie to them about the inevitable disaster you are saving them from..." - I am using the word inevitably here, because it is inevitable that over the years many such incidents will occur. Once again, he is accusing me of lying, without explaining why (a violation I believe) and without proving that such actions will definitely not occur. Therefore other than this and repeating his quote that has already been addressed and his claim that, my opponent fails to refute my argument by not PROVING that that such actions will not occur, while I DID in a way prove that they will. So, extend this argument to the 4th Round. "This is the final breath of liberty, as my opponent has accepted, when we regulate recreational drugs we now must apply that same logic to other aspects such as education, cigarettes and alcohol. Soon it will be over eating and lack of exercise, laugh if you will, but it's the logical conclusion." My opponent is trying to counter these 2 points 1.)"Not going to school is already illegal (!!!) and an increased criminal activity of the non-educated was one of the many reasons that the law was passed." - This is true, it is not something I expressed an opinion on etc. It is simply a fact! You HAVE to go up to the 9th grade, before dropping out. I am not campaigning against liberty as my opponent claims for the fifth time. 2.) My opponent doesn't provide my entire argument. This is very frustrating, because by doing so it seems as if in my argument, I am proposing to ban cigarettes, which is not the case. The whole thing is: "If parents can't control their children we should ban these [Cigarettes and Alcohol] in order to protect society and the growing and sensitive bodies of kids, but we can't [(!)]. This is because people would react. At least these aren't nearly as harmful as hard drugs and teens are somewhat safe from more serious health problems caused from hard drugs. If drugs were allowed, we wouldn't be able to ban them. So legalizing drugs is irreversible, we cannot recall our decision, because just like alcohol, people would react, so risking the lives of children is a dangerous risk because if we fail to control ourselves and our children we cannot recall our decision if we find that we have made a mistake." - As you can see am not saying that we should ban cigarettes and alcohol, I am providing an argument: a (hypothetical!!!) ban, is not possible. I do so in order to prove that the case would be the same with drugs (that if we allow them re-banning them would be impossible). Sadly, my opponent fails to refute this argument for yet another Round; instead he chooses to twist my words by not posting the argument as it should be. Therefore this argument is (once again) extended. "Imagine if our speech and press was regulated. My opponent would argue all the possible bad things folks would say if they had freedom to say what they wanted.....and certainly there are many things that ought not to be said but shall we regulate that too?" - No one is proposing this. The topic is drug legalization and once again my opponent strays from it. He puts words in my mouth that I neither say nor intend to do say in the future. My opponent asks a question: "Why are recreational drugs illegal but not alcohol?" My opponent repeats himself and proves once more that he has no other arguments. I have already responded to a very similar question in Round 2 and my answer is the same (alcohol is less addictive for teenagers, drugs are more dangerous to non users that socialize or drive with users etc). My opponent concludes by saying that the same question will be repeated in the case of over eating etc. It gets easier and easier to answer to such questions as they get scaled down, for example over eating is necessary for some people (e.g. Phelps eats 1200 calories per day in order to be able to swim professionally), people have different metabolisms and so on, and so on… Finally keep in mind: My opponent didn't correctly refute or even bother to refute in certain cases the vast majority of my points, while I correctly refuted each and every argument of his own (that was on topic). Instead, my opponent chose to twist my words, name my arguments "lies", without justifying his belief and falsely accusing me to be against liberty. Also my opponent did not even have a rebuttal in Round 3 (!) and due to that I extended all my arguments. Also, my opponent goes on and on about liberty that in the case of the affirmative is inevitably violated (life of innocents) and is therefore a weak argument, this happens because you can't support a liberty by supporting an action that will violate liberty, it is against logic. Therefore, my opponent fails to provide enough strong arguments in order to affirm the resolution. In conclusion, there is a big difference between my opponent's case and my own, despite the fact that we both support liberty. My case is stronger because the right to life is superior to that of drug use. Thank you very much.