All drugs should be legalized

C1: The marginal drug user "While legalization would increase drug users" Thank you. Proceeding: My opponents main argument here is legalization would make non violent users. I cant tell if he is hinting that prohibition is the problem, which is likely the case, but I would like to note the argument of marginal drug usage is mainly an opinionated argument which I see no logic in. When drugs where fully legal in the early 1900s, addiction rates where very high. In 1880, for example, opium and cocaine where legal for use and did not need doctors advice/oversight. Addiction was at very high rates. The UK has had other problems with more liberal laws, (allowing doctors to prescribe heroin), which have all lead to increased addiction rates.[1] Before cocaine was banned in 1915 cocaine usage [and addiction] was very high; so high that it was a major argument for its criminalization.[2] As we can see there is no "marginal drug usage" involved with legalization. The facts are clear: It increases addition rates, getting addicted is not marginal. I would also like to note marijuana, the least addictive of illegal drugs, is still highly addictive. Even moderate long term use can lead to many health problems and addictions.[3] Even if we assume there is "marginal" drug usage it can still lead to addiction, and an addiction to marijuana has been linked to violence.[3]My opponent then argues that the reason drug usage is falling is the same as tobacco and alcohol. But my opponents sources for tobacco argue 20% decreases in tobacco usage, and alcohol decreases of 50%. Current drug decreases are much larger, closer to 70% decreases in cocaine usage.[4] It is also a fact when you have higher costs people are less likely to engage in the activity/buy that product. For example if the price of Macintosh apples rose and the cost of red delicious apples fell the sales of Macintosh would decrease and purchases of the red delicious apples would increase. The drug war makes drugs substantially higher, as stated last round up too 4 times higher.[5] As this is a large factor we MUST assume that the drug war has some impact on the amount of users. Also with the strong data that legalization increases users,[1] we can assume the drug war deters those users (until the war ended). My opponent then cites the famous Portuguese drug decriminalization (started in 2001). The funny thing is that it was a failure. There was a 30% increase in drug overdose deaths (the marginal user!!) and the number of people tested positive for drug consumption rose 45%. I would also like to note Portugal has the second highest heroin usage rate of Europe. There was a 215% increase in cocaine usage.[6] I would also like to note alcohol and tobacco is still a much more common drug then illegal drugs. My opponent then argues drugs do not cause crime, arguing there is no linkage. But when California decriminalized marijuana usage, DWI arrests soared. But it is a fact that most sexual abuse cases involve drug usage. And it is also important to note most inmates have history of drug usage.[2] 24% of attacks on police officers happened when the attacker where under the influence of illegal drugs.[7] It is also important to note Portugal had an increase in drug related crime after its decriminalization.[6] C2: Drugs are fun My opponent first argues that legalization would lower prison population. FALSE. only 700 inmates are in jail for only drug usage, usually they have a violent crime then the drug usage stamp thrown on for extra jail time. So in reality you would have barely a dent in prison populations after legalization.[2] The DEA found the same conclusions.[8] My opponent then cites many "experiences" which scare me to read the links. But from what I read it argued drugs where "fun". Binge drinking for some people is great and makes them feel like studs. But does this mean it is good for them? Here's a debate.org example, the new user platypus enjoys smoking marijuana. Marijuana, however, has many health effects. Most notably the toll it takes on your lungs, and the effect it has on the T-cells. It disables T-cells so they cannot fight infection properly.[3] It also has been shown to make it harder to learn information and practice certain activities.[3] Cocaine, for example, has stimulants that pleasure the brain and make you "have fun". Cocaine ruins normal brain-to-body communication[s]. Their first exposure, and many others, are considered "pleasurable". Cocaine also increases risk of heart attack as well as other complications and long term problems.[9] What I am saying is drugs might be "fun", but their effects are negative in the long run and are sometimes secret and non see able until they strike. C3: Current usersHis case is actually correct, prohibition makes drugs less safe. There is no way to rebut this. Although drugs are harmful regardless, it is true prohibition does increase its potency. But what I am saying is legalization makes the problem worse (though not potency wise.) Legalization of any drug leads to increase in demand, and therefore leads to exacerbate the problem. And again my opponent argues the jail card, refuted above as most drug usage arrests the inmates are arrested for violent crimes then drug usage. It would not lower jail populations. My point being yes, it makes drugs more potent. But legalization increases violence and users which hurts society through ER costs, violence costs, etc.[3] Back to prison: Michigan only has 15 simple possession inmates, Wisconsin has 10. There is a total of 700,[2] and that is 2.7% of drug related crimes.[8] I would also like to note the DEA is also moving many of these inmates more towards treatment centers over jail.[8] C4: Gangs This is the point that is always argued, legalization would not end gang violence. I would like to first point out the government would likely limit drugs to 18 (or 21) as a minimum age, meaning everyone under 18 it would still be illegal to use drugs. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of the illegal drugs (age would likely be 21 for drugs -- like alcohol). So the gang and cartels would still be fairly large as the majority of drug consumption is for the under 21 crowd. In other words, the black market would still exist and thrive.[7] Also high taxes/regulation of these drugs, like we see with tobacco, could lead to higher gang violence rates. In NYC we see a high tobacco tax, and a large black market.[10] Legalization may or may not fix the problem. Also many groups and states argue huge revenues from marijuana legalization, the revenues they say it would rake in would require a 50$ to the ounce tax, that's a 100% tax.[3] So in reality a black market would love the high taxes and the 21 age. C5: Morality of prohibition Not allowing someone to buy something is not immoral. I would also like to ask under what philosophical umbrella is it immoral? Religiously? Utilitarian? I also dont see any immoral aspect to not allowing someone to buy a harmful product. The only immoral aspect I see is it causes gangs to kill people, but my analysis above shows legalization would do little to curb gang violence. CONCLUSION:Remember, my opponent has the BOP. He is a great debater, but has failed to meet his burden. That's it. Vote CON. Sources: (some shortened due to 8000 character limit)[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] Francke, D., and S. W. Varcoe. "Evidence Based Data and the Failed Portuguese Experiment." Dalgarno Institute (2010)[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://www.justice.gov...[9] http://www.drugabuse.gov...[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...