The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!

First of all, I would like to address the fact that I don't care if you misspell a couple of words in your debate. It's fine if you do that, and I understand that spell check can be kind of crappy at times. I would just like the judges to acknowledge this fact, and possibly get a couple of points for it. Also, when you are referring to drugs, do you mean cigarettes? If so, could you address this in the following speech? If cigarettes are allowed in the debate, could you also allow the subject of E-Cigarettes too? Rebuttal: Clarification 1: I thank my opponent for giving the newer/updated source. I understand the fact that you were unable to give me the correct link. It is very informational. Rebuttal 2: Thank you for clarifying on the phrase "peer pressure. " I agree with the fact that peer influence is a better term for it. But I would like to quote you on one of your phrases: "when you start drugs young," which is one of the points/rebuttals that I brought up in my previous speech. First of all, this is exactly why schools bring up the subject of drugs when you are younger. Therefore, it has become far less likely that a younger individual would accept drugs, unless they are very messed up. I would also like to address the quote that you made: ". That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up. " First of all, I would like to ask what you meant by "Contention 1. " By contention 1, do you mean my first rebuttal to your argument, or did you perhaps mean my very first contention? Seeing as how you appear to be referring to my first rebuttal, then I will give reasoning for that. If you meant something else, could you address that fact in your next speech? While one might be taking drugs, there are tons of other solutions for drug addictions (i. e: Pondera, which was mentioned in my previous speech), so that is what makes drugs harmless. They don't pose any threats because the threat can easily become neutralized by revolutionary products like Pondera. Rebuttal 3: Thanks for clarifying on the subject. I did look around a little bit; it was very interesting. However, I think that you dropped my argument in that paragraph. I will assume that you agree with that statement, or you overlooked it. In case that you just missed it, you can make it in a future speech. Otherwise, I guess that argument goes to me. Rebuttal 4: You're correct, I went off on a tangent, and got off topic. I will give a rebuttal to this, and then we should just leave the particular subject, unless you wish to pursue the subject further. You said, "You could see how your products are killing so many people, and it happens, no matter whose fault it is. " Doesn't that mean that the government should ban car companies as well? After all, cars kill thousands of people every year, just like drugs. Also, when I mention inexperienced drug users, I was not using myself in the 'equation. ' I won't give much of a rebuttal to this argument, seeing as how it went off subject, and it is highly one-sided. Rebuttal 5: I will agree with the fact that the source is against the argument. I should have done more looking on the particular subject. I can't argue with the fact that my own source contradicts my own arguments. Arguments: I will specify on some of my topics once more. First of all, drugs control the population. They kill off the disobedient people that can't follow society's laws. As I have said before, they separate the wheat from the chaff. People who just want to experience drugs are even more stupid. They already know the consequences; they are easily persuaded. Stupid, and easily-persuaded people have nothing to contribute to our society, and should therefore die. Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.