End the War on Drugs...

"Other drugs are more dangerous, yes, but just like cocaine and heroin, alcohol and tobacco are purely recreational substances which cause damage and addiction. Neither have any medicinal benefits that cannot be provided in safer ways. I find this double standard to be intellectually dishonest. " "I fully understand that the drugs I propose to legalize are more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, but I don't think you can rule out a comparison between these drugs. I have already noted the fundamental similarities in their nature, namely their physical dangers, their ability to cause serious addictions, their purely recreational use, and their lack of medical benefits. " "I don't see why you keep pushing this spiel about the health problems that illegal drugs cause. Nobody here is trying to argue that drugs are good for you. " These three responses by my opponent all fall under the same flaw: My opponent assumes that because alcohol and cigarrettes bear SOME similarity to illegal drugs, they should be restricted with the same leniency. My opponent's argument is completely and totally nonsensical. The fact that knives and firearms both kill people does not mean that firearms should be restricted as leniently as knives are. Firearms, if widespread, have the potential to cause massive social problems, much more so than knives. This is why the government regulates firearms more strictly than they do knives. Similarly, my opponent has conceded the fact that our illegal drugs are far more dangerous and deadly than current recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. It logically follows that stricter regulation should be applied. "Alcohol and sleeping pills, anyone? You certainly don't need cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy to encounter this sort of problem. " My opponent here is arguing against my concern that the widespread and poorly regulated use of illicit drugs will substantially raise the number of drug-drug interactions. However, my opponent's flaw is that he greatly underestimates the potential for abuse. It takes a substantial amount of unregulated sleeping medication (about a full bottle) to cause danger to the person taking it. So much so, that it is a sign of suicide. Potentially fatal interactions with illicit drugs will occur even at the recreational level, where death is not intended. This is where my opponent's rebuttal fails. And now, the core of the debate: *********************************** "My opponent is hell-bent on portraying the legalization of drugs as a doomsday scenario, in which people who have never touched drugs before in their lives will become hard drug users en masse. " "Anyone who makes an informed choice, and chooses an option which will cause them that much harm, deserves the consequences. Personal responsibility, along with personal liberty and individual sovereignty, is a principle upon which this country was founded. " Though my opponent greatly exaggerates my point, the sad part is that it does not need to be a "doomsday" scenario for there to be a severe and devestating impact on the American economy. I have decided to put together some crude numbers since my opponent has claimed I am overreacting. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Federal government spent $204 BILLION for medicaid in 2008 alone. But wait, that's not the worst part. The Federal government only ponies up half the amount, the state gives the rest. This means that in one year, the health costs for people on medicaid ring up to about $400 BILLION. Now, let's take a look at the stats for illegal drug use: Illegal drug use, estimated in 2001 to be 17% of the population. To be fair, half of these drug users did not use the much more dangerous illicit drugs I am arguing about, so we will count that number as 8% of Americans as chronic drug abusers. . http://www.policyalmanac.org... It is not unreasonable to say that once these drugs are made legal, four things will happen: 1. Those who are addicted will stay addicted. 2. Those who only refrain from drug abuse because of illegality will then proceed to become addicts. 3. Those who are limited in their drug habits because of regulation will then become complete addicts. 4. A substantial number of people, led either by curiosity, peer pressure, or the ideas of social rite of passage will engage in drug addiction. It is not unreasonable to assume that the 8% already fully addicted to dangerous, illicit drugs will rise to at least double (16%) given all the factors I listed. What does Medicaid have to do with drug addicts? The population of people currently on Medicaid, costing us over $400 BILLION, is equal the the conservative estimate of people who will require massive medical aid for drug addiction given the poorly regulated situation my opponent is proposing. Keep in mind that this population will require MUCH more intensive care and resources than medicaid recipients, even though their frequency of use may be smaller. They would break even in terms of costs to health care. However, this does not factor in the loss of productivity in terms of labor due to health problems, the regulatory procedures that will have to be undergone for this ridiculous proposal, escalated costs to provide more health care facilities for addicts, etc. This cost, which might go up to over a trillion, given that the construction and maintenance of facilities is very expensive, will have to be shared by EVERYONE. In the form of taxes, as well as private insurance fees. Meanwhile, the money spent on the war on drugs? A mere 11 Billion. . http://www.drugsense.org... *************************************** As I have said earlier, my opponent's argument has failed from the very start because he neglected one thing: Individual responsibility is inevitably tied to societal well-being by the Health Insurance mechanism. as I have proven with some raw number crunching that anyone at home can do. Legalizing drugs and having them heavily restricted would avoid many, MANY of these problems. For example, one good restriction would be to have them available by prescription only, so a doctor can regulate how much of these dangerous, life threatening substances are available. This would be a reasonable and acceptable proposal. However, my opponent INSISTS on keeping only as much regulation on these socially destructive drugs as are on cigarettes and alcohol, and *that*, ladies and gentlemen, is what will lead to enormous, ENORMOUS costs for each and every single one of us. My numbers, already conservative, calculate my opponent's plan to throw over $400 billion away. And for what? Personal liberties? talk about selfish. Societal good? I've already shown how it does way more harm than good. Brings down terrorists and drug lords? They'll just sell to other countries while our country goes into another economic crisis. My opponent simply has not thought his proposal all the way through, because he did not take into account the impact that it would have on society. Health care costs are not visible. They are shared by the entire country. My opponent has conceded both that drug use will almost certainly lead to addiction, and that addicts will suffer immense health problems that require massive amounts of care to correct and prevent. If he concedes it for one person, he MUST concede it for 50 million people, because we are all responsible for their health care, whether we like to believe it or not. $11 billion a year thrown away, or over $400 billion a year thrown away? It's your choice. Make the obvious one.