The U.S. should legalize all drugs

I appologize in advance for my argument. I had plenty of time to post during the weekend, but I decided to wait and long story short, life got in the way. However I do have some spare time as of now, and I know from experience that even a low quality reply is likely preferred by my opponent to a forfeit. At best this round will be described as short and concise, at worst a complete disaster. OverdoseI have a few problems with this argument and it's support for the pro side.--> Unless legalization would lead to people ACTUALLY reading the warning labels, AND the warnings actually being there, he is ganing no advantage.--> Pro concedes to the negative counterplan of small scale legalization, showing that the overdose impact can be turned to the neg. --> Pro argues that the media doesn't glorify drugs. Red herring, it bears no relevance to the debate I only brought it up as a small support of my side. The fact that Pro uses an entire paragraph to counter this is telling.--> Pro gains no solvency. He claims that drugs are taboo, yet has given us absolutely no reasoning as to how legalization would lessen this. I contend that they are taboo because they're harmful, not illegal. Adulterants--> No impact argued that isn't already covered in the overdose section.--> Pro states that adulteration is empirically proven..this is false, variation between drug dealers is empirically proven. We have yet to see anything showing how this happens individually.--> Pro argues that drug dealers don't inentionally cut their drugs, yet he hasn't explained how or why this happens. If it's truly so dangerous than they would no about it, because a drug dealer undoubtebly knows more about drugs than either my opponent or myself.--> Pro argues that criminalization prevents research. This is, again, false researchers are constantly developing techniques for dealing with addiction and the effects of drugs. Furthermore, many of the drugs illicit for recreational purposes have sanctioned medical uses, so you can ignore his research argument.AIDS--> Pro concedes that his advantage would happen under the negative counterplan. He argues "47 states have laws that disallow the distribution of syringes (2). Full drug legalization would be the ideal method to overcome it. " My response: why? All 50 states and the federal government have drug criminalization laws, and legalization would require legalizing each one individually. Legalizing syringe distribution would be much simpler.Cartels--> Pro misunderstands my turn. From a utilitarian perspective, the removal of an average drug dealer from the streets is advantageous. --> Pro essentially argues that criminalization does not deter usage. I have two responses: 1. The justice system does not exist only for deterrence, it also exists for punishment. However more importantly, criminalization does deter use. Logic suggests it, but for the sake of argument I'll provide evidence.According to the Heritage Foundation[1]:" the RAND Corporation reports that marijuana prices and cocaine use are directly linked, suggesting a substitution effect between the two drugs.[31] Moreover, according to RAND, legalization will cause marijuana prices to fall as much as 80 percent.[32] That can lead to significant consequences because “a 10-percent decrease in the price of marijuana would increase the prevalence of cocaine use by 4.4 to 4.9 percent.”[33] As cheap marijuana floods the market both in and outside of California, use of many different types of drugs will increase, as will marijuana use."Furthermore: " Keeping marijuana illegal will undoubtedly keep many young people from using it.[51] Eliminate that criminal sanction (and moral disapprobation), and more youth will use the drug, harming their potential and ratcheting up treatment costs."And this is only speaking of Marijuana, the softest of soft drugs. --> Pro argues that we would decrease crime by legalizing drugs, however consider the Mcdonough card previously offered that rebutted this.--> Pro argues that social status, not drug use, is what causes the crime. However he has ignored the logic that drugs decrease our ability to make rational decisions, so extend it.--> Pro is also arguing against the status quo, however remember that it is his burden to advocate legalizing ALL drugs, not changing the status quo. Any harms caused by the status quo that can be fixed are not compelling reasons for legalization.--> Pro argues that the drug cartels would cease to exist if legalization happened. They might cease to exist-as DRUG cartels. If my opponent believes that they'll turn to an honest living, he is deluding himself. Likely they would turn to harsher crimes such as robbery or human trafficking.Please Vote Con.1. http://www.heritage.org...