All drugs should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

1) Judges you can drop his arguments on regulation here completely because of their subjective nature. he cannot show that they will work and simply says they will be in place, However this contradicts his argument where he says we should have it legal because there would be less crime and thus no black market. Thus his refutation here can be dropped. 2)Adding more restrictions without explaining if they will work or their outcome, He doesn't explain what happens if these restrictions are ignored, thus these refutations can be dropped as well. 3A) The evidence he provides you here doesn't even apply to the united states but instead Portugal, a country with completely different culture, Portugal Wiebke Hollerson stated "The number of people taking illegal drugs in Portugal was low compared with other countries" the united states has a high amount of drug users. He continues"Warnings, reminders and invitations to rehab -- it seems Portugal's war on drugs is a gentle one. "Humanistic and pragmatic" is how Jo"o Goul"o describes the new program. It is based on decriminalization, which should not be confused with legalization. Portugal considered that path too, but ultimately decided not to take things quite that far." PORTUGAL HAS NOT LEGALISED ALL DRUGS, INSTEAD THEY TOOK A MORE SUBTLE APPROACH. my opponents statistics thus fall. [http://www.spiegel.de...] 3B)my opponent has not properly supported this argument and thus this point falls. (2?) Cremation still requires the costs of burial, you have only provided the costs for cremation, my opponent then gives an un-backed observation on how the government can give bulk discounts, this again is subjective and broad and thus it can be dropped. 3C) The evidence provided here doesn't address the argument I made thus it falls. 3D) This is again a subjective observation, that assumes we live in a perfect world where telling 18 year olds and below that drugs are bad and not to do them will work. That doesn't work now and it wont work then. 2) Knowing what youre taking doesn't increase the risk of Overdosing. 3) So giving people drugs like heroine, commonly overdosed on, would be a good idea because they are free to die? What benefit does this bring? Who is this Helping? You haven't provided why this is a good thing and why letting people die is a benefit. 4) People are dying from overdoses and melting alive, that's why crime goes down, that's still not a good thing, and based off the fact your answer for any issue is a regulation I would assume crime would actually go up. 5) PORTUGAL DIDNT LEGALISE DRUGS, THEY TOOK A SOFTCORE APPROACH, people are still punished for doing drugs. AND FYI "The number of drug addicts who became infected with HIV was also considerably higher than in most other countries." thus the drop is to be expected. 6) my opponent provided no logic or evidence to support this statement. 7) this is still unanswered 8)see 7 3E) 1- This doesn't even apply, my stats talk about smoking tobacco and yours is about ecstasy and marijuana, this leaves my statement un-refuted and shows that your perfect world scenario doesn't work, the community doesn't support it.