Drug Legalization

Many thanks again to my opponent for engaging in this debate.The Role of GovernmentUtility is subjective. Just because some people don't find value in things doesn't mean they ought to be criminalized. Candy serves no nutritional value, and in fact is harmful to the body. It's still legal and people decide what they want to consume. Likewise some find utility in drug use. In addition to medicinal and functional value, drugs including LSD, THC and psilocybin ("magic") mushrooms have been instrumental in religious and cultural rituals for centuries [1, 2]. Therefore one could even argue for legalization on the grounds of religious freedom [3].I've agreed with drunk driving laws and laws that prohibit all driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, even if they are legal or prescribed. For instance you cannot drive after being sedated under anaesthesia. Con has not explained why drug use has to be criminalized all together, instead of just criminalizing public intoxication and driving which is what is harmful to society. History and the War on Drugs Con does not provide a single explanation as to how to make the WOD more effective, though he claims we can do so while using less resources. He also says he doesn't have to get into the "minor details" of how to make this an effective policy. Without an explanation, we have no reason to believe it could work considering it has been a massive failure despite decades of efforts and increased funding. He also never explains how to rectify the problematic repercussions the WOD creates. Con has repeatedly argued that we should simply "change our policies" without addressing how. Insisting that we could have a successful WOD when every single one of our efforts has failed and created problematic effects is a useless position. He never provides a description on how criminalization could be successful. Con says "Just because crime will always exist does not mean we should stop fighting it." This is a straw man of my position. As I explained, laws against things like robbery, assault and rape ought to remain criminalized because they are intentionally aggressive and harmful. However personal drug use affects primarily the individual, and everyone is responsible for their actions while under the influence of drugs or not. If they harm another or do not take measures to avoid it, one should be punished. I didn't argue about the living conditions in prison; I claimed that locking people up is not justifiable for non-violent drug offenders. Con is relying on fallacious misrepresentations of my arguments, and has continuously ignored statistic after statistic noting the problematic concept of jailing people for drugs, including the socioeconomic, moral and pragmatic consequences. Con states, "She has also brought under attack the sheer scale of inmates, which is an argument for finding alternatives to prison (such as switching to a more fine based system of punishment)." This is an even worse response to drug use! It perpetuates the vast majority of my criticisms of the WOD, including the fact that it primarily and unfairly punishes low-income (minority) communities.Poor people cannot afford to pay fines and legal penalties. This will keep them poor, and Con himself points out that socioeconomic hardship plays a role in drug consumption. Therefore his policy encourages more drug use. Offenders will have criminal records that make them felons, thus making them unable to find work. They won't be able to pay the fines, which will either land them back in jail (making this an unreasonable "solution" in the first place), or simply encourage a harder life that includes more drugs. Con's proposition is even worse than the status quo. For those who can afford to pay the fines, they won't be a problematic deterrent in the first place.It's a complete lie that criminal enterprises cannot become legitimate, as we have seen alcohol businesses experience success after Prohibition. Restaurants and bars serving alcohol as well as liquor stores, alcohol brands and beer factories participating in the legal economy all disprove my opponent's false claim. Similarly, in U.S. states where marijuana has become legal, bakeries and other shops selling products with THC have emerged and implemented millions into the economy [4].Con again defeats his own argument regarding the mafia. The mafia choose illegal enterprises specifically because they are illegal, meaning untaxed, therefore profitable. By making the drug trade a legal and regulated market, we can tax and enforce safety regulations. Drug users will be more informed, and money would flow in the legal economy. Apparently Con would rather criminals like the mafia profit from the sale of drugs, instead of legitimate business owners who encourage safety (like age restriction for purchase) and tax payers.If drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those of alcohol and tobacco, they would yield almost 47 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year, while the U.N. says it is worth more than $320 billion [5]. Con will have to justify this massive expense. He will also have to explain how to fund these policies when we are already trillions in debt; he dropped this argument. Con claims police militarization is inevitable. A June 2014 study by the ACLU found 79% of the SWAT deployments examined were search warrant executions in support of minor drug investigations. In the majority of cases, police did not face genuine threats to their safety and security [6]. Tens of thousands of police SWAT raids over drugs take place each year, resulting in excessive damage to private property and injury and death for innocent bystanders. A recent NY Times analysis concludes drug raids drive up the demand for combat weapons and equipment [7]. In fact, the over militarization of police is directly related to the WOD. Health and Public Safety The U.N. estimates there are 230 million illegal drug users in the world, yet 90% of them are not classified as problematic [5]. Con claims drug addicts are victimized slaves to their impulse. Could we make the same argument for people who die from diabetes or the number one killer - heart disease? We don't criminalize junk food just because some people abuse it and become addicted to it. Studies say it is more addictive than cocaine [8]. We warn people of the dangers, and encourage healthy choices. Avoiding driving, having sober chaperones, staying indoors and other measures to minimize impacting or even interacting with others while under the influence of drugs (or alcohol) addresses Con's public safety concerns. Everything we do could theoretically hurt another person, but we take measures to prevent harm. Riding roller coasters is not safe or useful, yet people do it for fun and we have implemented measures to avoid risk. Proposed AlternativesCon never discredits my alternatives. Instead he claims it doesn't make sense to legalize something harmful. That is false; tobacco is legal and consumption is declining. Tanning salons are also legal but discouraged. We can legalize drugs and entrust the public with responsible use (while discouraging unsafe practices) as opposed to eliminating something all together. We utilize the same logic for things like firearms. We allow for the legal trade and use of guns for those who want them, so long as gun control measures to protect the public are established. Both cocaine and heroin do serve legitimate purposes. Heroin is an opiate pain killer like morphine. Stimulants are used for weight loss and focus. I know plenty of people who take a Xanax before a flight. Doctors can but don't need to write prescriptions every time an individual wants or needs to use a drug. Plenty of recreational drug users do not develop addictions. Con says rehabilitation can be provided while drugs remain illegal. That is nonsensical, as I've already explained how criminalization creates a plethora of hardship: economic woes and a criminal record for the individual, massive costs to the tax payers, etc. Why include those penalties instead of simply rehabilitating if the goal is to make the individual and society better? Re: Opponent's Case and Conclusion If someone wants to dilute Draino, that's their prerogative. This argument ruins Con case because Draino is already legal. People can harm themselves with legal or illegal substances. Therefore we have to look at the effects of criminalization on a cost-benefit analysis. I have proven that criminalizing drugs costs far more than it's worth. Drug laws have not reduced drug use [4], and Con has not given us a single reason or explanation to believe they can be successful - especially with less resources. He simply theorizes that it's possible; he never proves it is or even that it's the most moral option to try.Thank you. Sourceshttp://www.debate.org...