The United States Should End the War on Drugs

Con begins by noting that even though the WOD is unconstitutional, he wishes to amend the Constitution. While our Constitution can be amended to make this complete invasion of privacy legal, they shouldn't because it espouses government tyranny and violates the civil liberties that are paramount to our freedom. By giving the government this type of control, we become nothing more than the government's property and no longer live for ourselves but according to a standard we never agreed to but are forced to accept (much like those under dictatorships or other tyrannical rule). Also, Con never explained why the Social Contract was imperative, thus I'm assuming it's a dropped and forfeited argument considering I won't be able to respond. Next Con writes, "As I explained, most drugs currently legal should be banned." I don't remember Con explaining this, and if he had, I would have pointed out the severe flaws in this advocation. Essentially ALL drugs both legal and illegal serve a medical purpose. For instance, heroin is a pain killer. Other legal drugs like anti-depressants, ADD medicine, etc. also obviously serve a medical purpose. Therefore how can Con suggest that most legal drugs should be banned, when in fact our society relies heavily upon them for essential medication and pain relief? Any drug with a legitimate medical purpose can be (and often is) abused. There's no way of getting around that, so this seems like a really implausible and absurd idea. Moving on, Con claims that he did not present contradictory statements regarding heroin. Instead of arguing, I'll simply copy and paste exactly what he said and let the audience decide if these statements from Con's R2 contradict each other or not: 1. "A drug such as morphine or Heroin is effectively harmless ..." 2. "In addition to being less harmful, morphia is possible to directly substitute for alcohol..." 3. "However, despite their relative safety, almost as few as .6% Americans use opiates..." 4. "Why would Americans use a substance that is obviously more harmful [alcohol] at a rate that is much higher than than a drug that is much safer and more pleasant [heroin]?" 5. And finally - "The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes." Ladies and gentlemen, let's look at statements 1-4, particularly 4, and then statement 5. You make your own decision about whether or not these statements logically follow. Con consistently says that heroin is less harmful than alcohol, and then concludes that heroin is more harmful. Hmm. Nevertheless, Con admits that the WOD keeps people misinformed. You shouldn't have to control society through manipulation. Moreover, Con clarifies (in describing the Orwellian "doublethink") that people mistakenly think prescription pills are better for you which he admits is non-sensical. However, he suggests that this is a good thing because it aids prohibition against harder drugs. Of course this is also non-sensical; if he admits that prescription drugs can be just as harmful, than how is this a contention in his favor? Con writes, "[The fact that society is confused] proves that not only can prohibition work, but that the substance being prohibited does not even need to be very harmful for it to work." Essentially what Con just said is that society can be brainwashed to listen to anything the government says is harmful without actually knowing for sure. This is not a *good* thing. Further, this statement isn't reliable. Simply because more people abuse alcohol than heroin doesn't prove a success in the WOD, but simply the fact that alcohol is more socially acceptable. The fact that it's legal and available for purchase are some reasons of why it's consumed more than heroin. Also, people know heroin is dangerous in general thus avoid the drug. This has nothing to do with the WOD but can be observed or learned about through other means. Con has not offered any evidence that use of hard drugs would significantly increase if legalized. Also, the WOD is not limited to hard drugs; most money is spent fighting marijuana - one of the most harmless drugs of all (including the legal ones). Moving on, Con notes, "People are obviously not using these [harder] drugs due to the effect that prohibition... works extraordinarily well." Once again, prohibition is only effective insofar as it has become difficult to get one's hands on drugs that are heavily criminalized. This is not necessarily a good thing. Con's entire argument here rests on the fact that prohibition must work because so few of the population engages in heavy drug use. There is no validity or proof to back up this statement. As I've explained in R2, drug use has been steadily on the rise. Just because most people don't do it because they can't or because they have been lied to about the repercussions is hardly a strong argument in my opponent's favor. Many simply don't want to, plus supply is low. Con says that fast-food should be illegal; there's nothing I can say but "Wow" so let's move on to the next point: slavery and free will. Con concludes that because free will does not exist (which, by the way, is largely debated and most people believe it does exist on both a philosophical and quantum physics level) that we are essentially slaves to our own humanity so why not be slaves to the government. This is a far-fetched analogy that hardly presents a good argument for why our own autonomy should be abandoned in favor of becoming slaves to other people's agenda. Even if free will did not exist, determinism simply posits that every state of affairs is determined by all antecedent affairs. It says nothing about "choosing the least cruel master," and furthermore, there has been NO indication that being a slave to the government is the less cruel route, or that the "government" i.e. our peers should become our "masters." Because of this, Con's existentialist rant about freedom being slavery (okay, Sartre) is completely irrelevant to the debate. He says I advocate people being slaves to their passion instead of slaves to the government. That's fine. Go with that. You may not be able to escape "freedom from self" but you can avoid freedom from government tyranny. Con hasn't given us one reason why being a slave to the government is helpful but simply says the government is the "better master." I've explained in previous rounds why this is both immoral and non-sensical. Con essentially wraps up the debate by saying harsh laws prevent consumption, which is good because society needs saving from their own self-destruction. Extend all arguments negating this ideology, including the fact that drugs can have a myriad of positive effects. Also, Con completely dropped the argument noting that people can and will continue to get high whether drugs are legal or not. With pot criminalized, people huff glue, sniff markers, smoke nutmeg and down cough syrup as ways to get high using everyday things in the home. Furthermore, Con never presented a rebuttal to the fact that the WOD leads to a perpetuation of the under class, destruction of families, a significant deficit and burden on tax payers, government lies, government profiting at their "slaves" expense, and most importantly the inevitable gang violence and other severe, violent crime that is completely detrimental to our society and distracting our law enforcement while simultaneously costing us trillions. He's avoided talking about the economic repercussions at all, and when talking about saving people from their own humanity, he ignores the merits of saving them from an oppressive government that aims to destroy their life, family and opportunities. I pointed out all of these dropped arguments in the last round, yet Con chose not to respond. Considering it's the final round, it's too late now. Thanks and good luck.