Drugs should be decriminalized

I suppose ill take up this debate, as my last debate was a bust. First, i will like to thank my opponent for making this debate. I will address his points first, and then move onto my own. "We've now been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. People still do drugs." Sure, people still do drugs. Just like people still murder other people. I mean, has there been a single criminalization of anything, which completely deterred people from doing the said thing? I cant think of any. "It also tells us that 20% of our prison population is not in prison for harming someone or their property." I fail to see the logic in this argument, either. If the criterion for jail was simply harming someone else or their property, where would the drunk drivers go? Illegal Gun possession? These are all things that do not necessarily harm other people or their property, just like Drugs. Should we let these guys go as well? "If we were to allow drugs to be sold, it would certainly help the economy." Of course it would! Just like lowering the drinking age to 12, would also boost the economy, increase tax revenue. Imagine if kids didn't need to go out and get a fake ID, and could just walk into any liquor store and buy drinks. It would be great for the economy. Why don't we do it? Because, we have standards, and one of those standards is to decrease the possible number of accidents and mishaps. And one way to do this is to place restrictions. Currently, we have drugs that are available to the public if properly prescribed, such as Vicodin(an Opiate), Marijuana, MDMA(A.K.A Ecstasy, currently being used to treat disorders like PTSD)(1). But, much like alcohol, there are restrictions in place, to prevent just anyone going out and buying these. "Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you when you can get drugs for cheaper and without getting shot or losing fingers?" First of all, why would the drug cartels kill you for no reason? It would make more sense to keep you alive, especially if you were a customer. Secondly, here's the problem with your argument. Suppose that the Government produces specific factories to produce Drugs. What would the Government have to pay them? The standard minimum salary, of course. What do Drug Cartels have to pay their lowest employees? Whatever they want to, including below-minimum pay. They probably will, as all they care about is money. However, now we have a conundrum. We have the government-made Drugs, that cost hundreds of dollars(Just take a look at the US Drug market.)(2) And, we have the cheap-labor prices of the drug cartels. Now, if you were a Drug addict who spent most of your money on the safer, store-sold drugs, what would you do? "There are two groups of people who would be hurt by drug legalization: Drug dealers and police officers." This is possibly the most absurd argument that my opponent has made yet. Drug dealers will not be as hurt as you may think. Guns, which are legal, are a great example. Are gun-runners being hurt by the fact that there are legal Guns out there? Or has their business stayed the same, because it is more tedious and cost more to buy them legally?(3) As for officers, not at all. I will explain more later. Now, onto my own arguments. 1. My opponent has brought up Alcohol and prohibition as a parallel to this situation. I think it's a very poor example, and here's why. Alcohol, in moderation, has very little effect on the body. As with any substance, including Nutmeg, taking too much can be detrimental. However, small doses of Alcohol merely lightens moods and warms the body. Can the same be said of most illegal drugs? Here's a good question to ask. How many social drinkers are there? I would estimate that at least 90% of people who drink, are not Alcoholics or otherwise dependent on alcohol. Now, how many social Cocaine users are there? Clearly much less, to the point that i would guess 10% of people who use Cocaine are not addicted or dependent on it. This is, of course, because Cocaine is much, much, much more addictive than your average beer, and much harder to shave off. Its the reason why AA meetings are just that, meetings, while Drug rehabilitation clinics requires an entire building. Clearly Alcohol is a poor example, as it does not even come close to the detrimental effects of Drugs. 2. Many drugs, are prescription drugs for a reason. The main reasons, are: -Drug Conflicts. If you are taking two or more drugs, unless you are a doctor, you do not know how these drugs interact. Which is why, many prescription drugs are prescribed by a doctor who knows your family history and medical history. These drugs are in fact dangerous in the right combination. -Reduce addiction. As said above, there are many drugs that are highly addictive. To reduce this risk, the drugs are prescribed to people who actually need them, and in specific quantities so that there is no abuse of the drugs. Each time the patient wants a new bottle of said drugs, they require a new prescription, and this is usually given only after the Doctor re-examines the patient so that he can confirm the patient is still in pain or still requires the drug. -Previous history. LSD, is a great example, as it can trigger a schizophrenic episode in someone who never knew he had schizophrenia. Other examples include things like Low or High blood sugar, heart/lung/liver problems, etc etc. The list goes on. 3. This is by far the most important point I am going to make. Currently, the death toll and Alcohol-related accidents are so high, for reason. That is, Alcohol is readily available at almost any city block. Now, I've never tried drugs before, mainly because I have no idea where I would get my hands on them. Imagine if Drugs were sold as frequently as Alcohol? Wouldn't anyone agree that this would drastically increase the Drug-related accidents and deaths? Now, my opponent has previously mentioned that drug legalization would decrease the number of police officers. I said this was absurd, and here's why. The abundance of readily available drugs, might decrease the number of drug busts, but at a cost. It will also increase the number of drug-related accidents. Clearly we would still need as many police officers, to deal with these occurrences. Whether or not this means less, or more police officers, is up to speculation, but it is safe to say that the number will not change drastically, or at least as drastically as my opponent would hope. 4. This is possibly the most dangerous aspect of my opponents argument. If all drugs were legalized, this would mean the end of Prescription drugs. Drug companies would go wild. There are specific steps, processes, that a drug company must go through in order to have a drug accepted by the FDA(Food and Drug administration). This includes a strict regulation of drugs in order to see whether or not the drug will have adverse effects when mixed with other drugs. Now, it is not an understatement to say that on average, a drug company will spend a couple hundred million on drug research, clinical trials, testing, and approval from the FDA. Without this process, drug companies will go the cheaper, more profitable route of skipping that and going straight to clinical trials. No one can stop them, cause all drugs are legal! 5. I would like to ask my opponent a question. If we were to legalize all drugs, what would the restrictions be? Clearly we must put limits as to who can buy them. Sources: 1. http://www.mdma.net... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.answerbag.com...