Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA

I apologize to my opponent if I offended you over the slippery slope argument refutation. That being said, here are my refutations. R1. Moral consequence My opponent brings up the argument that morally, it would not be right to continue allowing people to “legally kill themselves.” However, I have brought up before how it becomes more apparent to others and to loved ones when someone is abusing drugs when it is legalized. Given the strict laws of today against drugs, it would be completely reasonable to assume that if one were to admit their illicit drug addiction, they would be arrested. Ergo, current penalties for drug-related crimes deter people of actually going to seek treatment. However, if we were to completely legalize drugs with some oversight we would be able to see more people willing to admit that they are addicts or abusers and can receive help. R2. FDA not good enough My opponent has not given a statistic or citation of evidence to back up his point that the FDA is not capable enough to handle the regulation of drugs. Regardless of whether portions of drugs can be regulated or not, a perfect solution would be to regulate content and tax it heavily like we do to alcohol and cigarettes. This would not only raise revenue but would also be beneficial to the consumer. The only times the FDA have not done well as far as regulation would be with vitamins and other drugs where they were not given jurisdiction to heavily regulate. With the current drugs on the black market, it would be obvious that not only is heavy regulation needed, but it would also save lives. Also, I would like to challenge my opponent to answer the following question. What better department in the government is there to regulate and distribute drugs besides the FDA? There really is no better way to regulate effectively without it. R3. “Slippery” I apologize to my opponent if I had offended you but the argument I make still stands. Simply because drugs are legalized does not mean it will become socially acceptable to have. Remember, many people are already against this resolution for business and for personal reasons. After we legalized alcohol again after the prohibition, there were still bad views of alcohol, but it was still allowed as a choice. I have also shown in my previous argument about how lobbying and anti-drug ads already show drugs in a negative light. What this means is that with heavy regulation and the continuation of people spreading the word against drugs, as well as educating people in school will continue to shine a negative light for currently illicit drugs. R4. Legalization vs. Decriminalized At the start of my opponent’s most recent argument he/she explains that total legalization is a poor idea, and that lessening jail penalties for consumers of illicit drugs and strengthening penalties for those who deal drugs is better. However, let us realize that we have solved this problem with the resolution. Since we are taking money from the dealers through a heavier regulated drug market, we are limiting their influence and illegalizing the sale of drugs through any other way then through certain stores. If we assume that a license needs to be held to serve these types of drugs, just like for beer or cigarettes, then we would prevent dealers from having an influence in the first place. Thus, by showing how my opponent’s theory does not hold water, we can see that completely legalizing drugs and then regulating them is the most perfect way to solve the problem. Also, when my opponent brings up that all portion of drugs is dangerous, he is correct, but we are still trying to save as many lives as possible, so even if the drug is being ingested, we are still saving more lives than are usually killed through the current system of penalties for drug crimes. R5. State of Debate My opponent has still not shown sources to back up their theories and has not responded to my economic points at this time. Remember, we still need to weigh lives over money, but since the pro side has clearly won on this issue and my other points have been extended throughout this debate, unless my opponent can refute them, they are losing. Thank you for an interesting debate, I await your response. Good luck!