The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

Once again Black Void I thank you for your timely response. In regards to your car analogy, A seat belt is put in a car so it can be worn. If it is not worn than it is going against its purpose. If a seat belt is supposed to be used than not using it is miss use. But we have gotten a bit off topic in this discussion anyway. My opponent said I needed evidence to reinforce my saying: "No amount of crack is okay." However, I believe that it is not me who needs to supply this evidence but my opponent is the one who needs to give evidence saying that crack can be taken in moderation. My opponent is the drug advocate therefore it is he who should supply the evidence. My opponent also challenged my point about second hand smoke. He said that because people will be dying of over dose second hand smoke will be at a minimal. Is my opponent really suggesting that the level of second hand smoke will be low enough just because people will be dying off in the over dose process. If my opponent's solution to second hand smoke from illegal substances is really to just allow drug abuser's to die of I believe in regards to public health a vote for the Neg/Con is clearly the best. In round 2 I left out a point I made earlier about pharmaceutical drug production. It may be true that my opponent made up this plan;however, just because he made up this plan doesn't mean everyone will follow it. If drugs are made legal then not only will pharmacies be selling them but the current illegal parties selling them (i.e. the Mexican Drug Mafia) will continue to do so. I concur, some drug users may be buying the pharmacy produced one's but many people will stick with there current sellers who would still be mixing in dangerous additives. It is almost impossible to regulate drugs because even if they become legal many 3rd parties will still be making them and adding in dangerous things. In conclusion ----------------- The goal in this debate was to prove that keeping drugs illegal was in the best interest of the public's health. My first point was that any use of drugs is miss use, my opponent challenged this by asking for evidence. Because he was the drug advocate in this case he should have provided evidence saying that crack could be used in moderation but since he didn't I have one this point. My second point was second hand smoke. I the goal is to protect the public's health than legalizing drugs would only increase second hand smoke which would harm the public's health. My opponent responded (and I do paraphrase): "Second hand smoke would be at a minimal because drug abusers would be dying from over dose thus reducing second hand smoke." If my opponents solution to dangerous second hand smoke was to merely let drug abusers die off in order to keep second hand smoke levels down then he is not following the goal to protect public health because he is letting people die. Because my opponent did not stick to the goal in trying to preserve public health and I did by proving that any drug use is miss use and that drug use will produce very harmful second hand smoke I have one this debate. I thank all parties voting and strongly urge a Neg/Con ballot! -Thank you