Recreational Drugs should be Legalized in the United States of America

In Round 3 my opponent keeps repeating his sole Round 2 contention of liberty "Unfortunately my opponent's logic is flawed. Every example he offers the possible harm caused to others as justification to criminalize the act. The act of using drugs itself doesn't cause the harm, just the "possible" effects. I say criminalize the acts against others....Criminalize murder, blowing second hand smoke in someone's face, drug use by minors, but don't criminalize adult regulated drug use. We can regulate this use but not criminalize this use." - My opponent clearly misses the point of all these arguments and therefore fails to refute them. The point is that even if these acts are criminalised, people are extremely likely to violate the law. We can predict this because it is already happening in the case of cigarettes and alcohol. Here are some examples: 1. although teenagers aren't allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes they still do so. 2. Murder is already banned, but people still murder people while under the influence of alcohol 3. Smoking in non-smoking areas is illegal, but people still smoke there. From the above we can conclude that the laws that ban second hand smoking, driving and socialising under the influence, underage drinking etc are not effective. This means that if we legalise drugs we would be in a similar situation were people would violate the law thinking that it doesn't damage anybody else, costing the lives and health of innocents. This ladies and gentlemen is what I am refuting, not the man who obeys the potential law stays and home and ruins his health at his own expense. "My opponent asks if I am debating for all the harmful effects of drug use, I am not." - I agree that he is not intentionally doing so, but the harmful effects of drugs (as I explained above) are INEVITABLE, once the law is passed, since people will most likely violate the law, just as they do today. So, indirectly my opponent is supporting all the harmful effects explained in my Round 1 argument, because they are directly liked with drug legalization. My opponent goes on and on about a natural law, as likes to call it. I agree with his position although I find it fairly irrelevant, because it is not the point we disagree on. I would like to clarify once more that my objection to drug legalization lies in the fact that certain people (teenagers who might get hooked on drugs, innocent drivers, those who annihilate second hand smoke etc) other than the users, will almost inevitably be effected in a negative way if drug legalization were to happen. He also, says that providing extra laws banning drugs, in addition to "natural law" is against Christianity. This is completely false because the vast majority churches and church bodies (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), are against drug legalization. My opponent continues his argument by quoting the Declaration of Independence and for the third or forth time, makes the same point about liberty and human rights. He once again fails to understand that the potential users, who want to destroy themselves, are not the ones in question; it's the innocents and teenagers as I explained above. He completely ignores that people's liberty (that he so passionately states that he is supporting) will INEVITABLY be violated. How do we know this? It's already happening (with alcohol and cigarettes)! My opponent repeats himself by saying that there will be regulations to prevent the above. My answer is the same. For the final time, THESE REGULATIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE, they don't work with alcohol and it is almost definite that this won't change in the case of drugs. "I will agree with my opponent on any act that takes away another persons Liberties directly should be in violation of the law and disciplined accordingly. What about the man sitting in his house all day smoking Crack. How has that man violated anothers Liberty directly? How can we justify making that act criminal and punishable by law? We can't unless we start making stuff about how he MIGHT do this or that." I remind my opponent that I do not object to this. Logic tells that many people will not just do drugs in their house but will do so outside of it too, potentially harming others due to the effect on their brain and/or second hand smoking. The effects on innocents are not things that MIGHT happen, they WILL, It may happen in a massive scale, it may happen in a small one, but that does not matter, even if one person dies because of some sicko addicted to drugs that is already a huge loss, and if we allow it we will go against human rights that my opponent thinks he is supporting. Finally keep the following in mind: First of all, my opponent failed to properly refute most of my Round 1 contentions, because he didn't PROVE that second hand smoking, underage drug use, driving and socialising under the influence etc, wouldn't occur and even if I hadn't completely proved that such things WOULD occur (which I did), we could not afford to take such a risk and put innocents in danger, just for a few who want to do drugs and kill themselves, because as I said if we are mistaken we cannot recall our decision. Therefore extend these arguments. My opponent failed to refute any of my Round 3 points in his own Round 3 argument, so extend them too. Additionally, my opponent only provided one weak contention, that he keeps repeating [liberty] that basically doesn't stand, because innocent people's liberty will be violated by people who are under the influence of drugs, as compared to four strong and ill refuted contentions of my own. Also, I will have debated one more round than my opponent when the debate is over, because he didn't post a round 1 argument that is why I have an advantage no matter what the case. Therefore I negate, Thank you very much. Back to you, jmlandf Alex ("liberty")