Drug Legalization

Just some quick notes: Pro, in this debate, carries the sole burden of proof, as he must show that all drugs should be legalized by the government (the definitions of "drug" and "legalization" is [1][2]) That means that legal barriers should not exist around drugs. This entails that if I show even one drug should be kept illegal, then I have defeated the resolution and won the debate. Since I am upholding the status quo, I do not need to present any of my own arguments, but I will anyway. Without further ado, I will launch straight into Pro's arguments. Refutations: 1. War On Drugs While there is an indisputable cost to the War on Drugs, this cost doesn't make it inherently bad. Our military, our police forces and fire departments cost copious amounts of money to support and maintain, but this, alone, does not make them worth doing away with. While I see Pro's point, it doesn't work as a sole reason to legalize drugs. As for Pro’s statement on drug use, none of his sources give proof of this statement. His evidence lies in a graph [3], which compares drug “addiction” to nominal dollars. This paints an inaccurate picture. For one, there is no accurate way to measure drug “addiction” as it is not clearly defined and difficult to record, and the data in the graph appears to be made up on the spot [4]. Also, the use of nominal dollars doesn’t account for inflation or population changes. A more accurate picture on this issue would compare real dollars to drug “use” which a user from reddit did: s://lh5. googleusercontent. com. .. ; alt="" width="474px;" height="282px;" /> This shows a general downward trend for drug use as per capita spending increases. This refutes Pro’s evidence about how the drug war hasn’t decreased drug use. The non-partisan RAND institute backs up my claims that drug prohibition works, especially with cocaine, [7] and that legalization will lead to a decrease in drug costs and thus an increase in consumption. I would like to remind my opponent that he is advocating for drug legalization, not drug treatment over punishment. 2. Heroin Pro’s arguments on making heroin legal begins in his second paragraph. While his arguments seem relatively reasonable, we must remember that legal drugs does not make heroin automatically pure. In fact, legalization could lead to making heroin even less pure. This is, actually, an overall concern of drug legalization. By removing all legal barriers, we open the door for corporations to make the substance more addictive by adding more chemicals to it. Corporations will be incentivized to do this as it will make their market desire their product more (as they are more addicted) and they will have no negative repercussions for doing so (as their actions are completely legal). This can be seen with Big Tobacco and nicotine [6]. To quote the Huffpost article,“Researchers say that manufacturers have likely altered the design of cigarettes to make them more efficient in delivering nicotine to a smoker's lungs, thus making them more addictive. ” Essentially, if we legalize drugs, we allow business to make it incredibly addictive and to make it all the more deadly. Legalization makes this situation worse. Pro’s arguments on the lifestyle of heroin users being due to making it illegal rest on shaky grounds. For one, if heroin addicts seek treatment or someone else asks that they find treatment, they can receive it with little problem. Secondly, drug addiction can easily cause poverty by exacerbating the situation they are in [8]. Legalization, as I noted with the RAND study [7], would explode this situation, as access to heroin would be all the more available and the cost would be considerably lower. Neither of Pro’s last two paragraphs in this section justify heroin being legalized. One talks about medical marijuana and ibogaine lowering addiction rates for heroin. This does not make a case for heroin being legalized. 3. Psychedelics Pro’s statement that psychedelics is not that bad if used in moderation is contradictory with what he is working to prove. By removing legal barriers to drugs, people will be more able to take psychedelics in large portions. Also, psychedelics like LSD require higher tolerance with every use to achieve the same effects, which defeats the entire purpose of having it in moderation. [9] None of Pro’s sources support the claim that, “psychedelics [pretty much always] positively impacted [drug user’s lives]. ” While not physically addictive, psychedelics can be quite mentally addictive. Many people use hallucinogens like LSD continually to escape reality [9]. As for Pro’s list of figures who have used LSD and have been fine, it is an appeal to authority. Simply because they took the drug, it does not justify it being legalized or prove that the authority truly weren't harmed from these drugs. The problem with Pro’s last point is that it ignores many health effects of these drugs. One effect is flashbacks. Flashbacks are sudden, without warning, and do so within a few days or as long as a year after LSD use. Flashbacks can cause distress or impairment in social or occupational functioning. They can also impair the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers, which can be fatal [14]. While it would be nice if everyone could use drugs responsibly, the legalization would increase the probability that people become more addicted as usage would increase (due to greater availability) and so would a drug’s potency (due to corporate influence). 4. Medical Marijuana While medical marijuana has some positive effects, it is not the only cure to diseases such as cancer. I found 10 different ways to treat cancer that don’t involve medical marijuana [12]. Medical marijuana legalization, according to NBER, causes, “. .. a relative increase in the probability of marijuana use of 16 percent [for those 21 and older], an increase in marijuana use frequency of 12-17 percent, and an increase in the probability of marijuana abuse/dependence of 15-27 percent. For those 12-20 years old, we found a relative increase in marijuana use initiation of 5-6 percent. ” [13] While it could help, there are other cures to the disease Pro spoke about and, because it can lead to more abuse with marijuana, there is no need to legalize medical marijuana. My Case: Legalization Problems I touched on this previously, but legalization would cause an increase in usage [7], crime, potency (see my point about corporations in “2. Heroin”) and cost to society [16]. The increase in usage is quite logical. If legal barriers are removed, the cost is allowed to decrease dramatically. This is due to a market being created around the drugs, which will lead to lower costs, more consumption, and more addiction. RAND notes that the legalization of marijuana in California would cause the cost to decrease by 80%. It even says that the cost could decrease more because of advertising and de-stigmatization [17]. Lower price=greater use. The other effects will follow logically. A large amount of crimes are already committed under the influence of drugs [15]. Because more people will use drugs, this will increase the probability that the crime is committed under drugs. There will be costs to society that stem from, “. .. health care costs, crime, and lost productivity” [16]. Illegal drugs already cost around $181 billion dollars a year in these areas; image what would happen if drugs were legalized and use increased. Synthetic Drugs [SD] SD’s are some of the most deadly drugs on the market and should never be legalized. They cause a large amount of devastating effects on people. I don’t have the space to list them all, but they can be found in [20]. They range from paranoia to heart attacks and even death. Conclusion: Pro has failed to show that all drugs, like meth, cocaine or others, should be legalized and I have defeated his existing arguments. I showed issues with legalization and provided a drug that should not be legalized. The resolution is negated. Sources: . http://www.debate.org...