All Drugs should be Legalized.

i'll refute:[Any Source or Evidence of how common it is? It doesn't happen often]Cited in my arguments from that round: . http://www.cdc.gov... „Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs. [. .. ] More than 12 million people reported using prescription painkillers nonmedically in 2010, that is, using them without a prescription or for the feeling they cause „ That's pretty often. [ Many people that have been addicts for long enough do indeed require larger doses but with this , the risk of overdose decreases aswell because the body is more tolerant to it ]Incorrect. Tolerance decreases with time, and so if you take a short break and come back to the habit you'll find that the chances of you overdosing is higher for the same amount. Overdosing is also caused by injecting in too much of an hurry, the person has been using the drug for a long time and thinks he knows what he is doing along with not knowing the strength of the drug. [1] Overdose can happen at any time, to anyone, without warning. Drugs form a complex chain of chemicals and patterns in your body and eventually that chain will break without warning resulting in death. So how does offering drugs in one place increases accesibility when before you also could get it just in a different place . I, personally, cannot get drugs where I live. They are not sold legally, I do now know anyone that sells them and I haven't randomly been offered them. I have however been offered alcohol and tobacco and can buy it without any difficulties whenever I randomly decide that they tempt me. I have been asked by minors to buy cigarettes for them and when I declined they went to the next person that did buy it for them. [jews Hitler didn't kill jews for their religion]I chose that example precisely for the reason that is was an oversimplification to show your fallacy. Thank you for expanding the thought on my behalf. [Drug addicts do choose to take the drug ]Peer pressure is a powerful thing, it isn't choice, it's stress and longing to fit in. they may be stressed or in a dark place at that time of their lives. They may have been forced into it. It may have been their only way out of the gloomy darkness and they may have been thinking irrationally or not be mature enough to understand the effects. This is an oversimplification, a logical fallacy and isn't a valid argument. [2] [I have listed many reasons why i support Drug Legalization]In this context, irreverent. I was referring to the fact that you seemed completely void of all feelings towards those that I used to make my case while showing sympathy for those that support your case (as you showed when addressing freedom and overdose). You must provide the same treatment and train of logic to everyone involved. [ most experts reckon that drug legalization would lead to prices falling . ]That's great; Now we have cheap, unsafe drugs on the black market. That's just wonderful. Remember that black vendors won't vanish, they'll just act like another store and lower the prices, make the product more appealing and utilizing what isn't legal as a selling point. [It takes more effort to get it legally than illegaly . ]Read my refutation to accessibility. Let's say I couldn't buy alcohol due to age. I'd reckon that I could get my hands on some alcohol by the end of Sunday. I'd call a friend that is over age, I'd buy some from other teens or I'd stand around the liquor store until someone agrees to purchase a six-pack for me. In addition I'd be able to swipe some from my parents that do drink. Let's say I want to get some weed. I've not a clue where to start: I'd maybe contact my friend because I know he has a few friends doing the substance. I'd then have to contact those guys who live an hour drive away from me and see if they can sell me some or tell me who is the dealer and arrange a meeting with him. That might take several days, at least a 3 hour trip to the capital, and I don't have three hours to go anywhere with my life swirling around me. Legal means it's visible and easy to access. Illegal means that people hide it and have to go a few more corners to get things. In what way is it faster to get illegal merchandise? [where the hell did you get that statistic from ? It's certinaly not over 50%]If my opponent had gone over my citations (albeit, incorrectly cited in the argument I'll admit) he would have found the correct one. [. http://www.cdc.gov...] out of those around 1/12 are serious addicts and there is a larger range of people that are in high risk of becoming serious addicts. [i said that i don't know and they could lower , stay the same or rise it depends on many factors and there would be different results in different places ]So it could lower. .. but it could stay the same. .. . but it could increase? That's not an argument for either case, it isn't even an argument, it's accepting that all three results possible might happen. It's virtually the same as accepting that a coin could land on one side but also the other one. Let's look at the original start of this rebuttal: “it is more dangerous and expensive for their parents to get their next fix“If it is more dangerous, and more expensive, and we already discussed that It is harder for someone to get drugs illegally, something my opponent still has not refuted, isn't it more likely that said parent would avoid the drug habit all together? There is a difference going around the corner and buying beer and going to the next alley and buy something that is “dangerous and expensive”. [We are already letting adults do a lot of things do you want to ban suicide too ? driving is completly different to doing drugs]Illogical comparison. We're not allowing people to commit suicide and suicide is an act with the intention of harming yourself. It is impossible to punish someone for killing themselves, locking up the corpse is an absurd idea. Point dropped. On the other hand driving and drug abuse is a logical comparison when it comes to the following aspects: Both can kill you; Both can cause harms to a third party; Both might turn out all right time after time without anything going wrong. The difference is that there is a much smaller chance of you getting killed when stepping into a car as compared to doing drugs. [I said it is better because it would increase in quality]Not a complete refution. Given Bath salts that have these side effects we know that they won't be sold. Making them legal would not make them any safer and they will be recalled. Hence, they become illegal again and the resolution is not fulfilled. [It would be legal … not a lot of people would use it]you're not seeing the big picture. Let's assume that you're the government. You cannot accept selling a drug that has these side effects. But the resolution requires that it will become legal, so how do you propose to pass the notion to make Krokodil legal? Remember that it doesn't matter how many use it, it just has to become legal somehow. If you cannot provide substantial arguments on WHY and HOW Krokodil should become legal you've failed to fully fulfil the resolution and lose the debate. [what are the chances of that? ]Does it matter? If I pointed a gun at you and told you that there is only a 6% chance of it shooting you in the face would you allow me to pull the trigger? I know it's a small chance, but when it's your life on the line you're not going to accept that small chance. [ second of all again how does prohibition deal with it? ]I'd like to remind my opponent that this sentence isn't a magical go-to answer that fits in every single scenario: It's as valid as “How does legalization deal with that? ” whenever the answer requires a few cranks to figure out. My opponent failed to explain why it's illogical to think that way . I assumed that it explained it self. I apologize: It's illogical because you're making a case out of chance. If we remove the comparison, think of the sentence: “Mikal might win the debate; we don't know. ”It provides us with absolutely nothing else than guessing. In context:“assuming that if drugs were legalized more people would do it , this is not a certain thing“ I gave the following reasons:-lower prices-added visibility-added accesability-more social acceptance. All these will drive the usage up. [The situation is not the same]Do explain. Until then: dropped. [Often it makes dealers , making more profit and makes companies invest in something that will produce them more profit ]I'm terribly sorry, I don't mean to be an a**hole, but I didn't understand this argument nor how it relates to the topic. Would you mind rephrasing? [all these things can change]Than why haven't they? War is legal (per say) and hasn't gotten better; oppression is illegal and is still at rise. They cannot change, they're human nature. Judge humanity accordingly. ['apart from its addictivness']fallacy: Just about the same as saying: “suicide isn't dangerous, apart from it's death rate. ” Addictiveness is what makes it dangerous, that's the issue we need to fix. My opponent has a single round and he still hasn't met either of the two conditions that are required for the resolution to hold. WHY should dangerous drugs that do have a dangerous side effect be legal despite it's dangers and HOW would someone make a substance that kills you and make you a risk to others legal without interference from already existing laws and regulations? I'd like my opponent to make a structured case that properly defends the flaws of the resolution: read over my rounds and address all unaswered arguments that are not refuted and are vital to the resolution. 1). http://www.adp.ca.gov...2)http://www.drugfreeworld.org...