To be decided.

Since I do not herein have the space to quote the discussions in their entirety, please refer to the prior rounds if context is needed. PRO states, " ... Benefits don't come from fighting a war, they come from winning it ... there are disadvantages to losing a war ... The disadvantages, obviously, include the ones I provided." Yet, I have shown that the disadvangages you state have been the consequences of the war on drugs over the last 30+ years. Perhaps you wish us to believe that suddenly, after over 30 years, what has failed in the past will magically work, and these negative impacts will end. One definition of insanity is continuing to try the same thing, hoping for different results. We have tried prohibition with alcohol, and it failed and was repealed, and we have now tried the "war on drugs" for 30 years, and it has failed -- the rational response would be to conclude that prohibition causes more harm than good, and should be repealed. I have shown that the war on drugs is a known harm, -- your hope that it will not continue to be so does not constitute evidence or a reasonable basis for policy. PRO states, "If the government stopped now, the availability of drugs wouldn't change. People would still deal drugs in those places." Of course -- but we would not be spending billions of dollars, and causing all of the other miriad harms that I showed. If the PRO side is himself admits that the war on drugs accomplishes nothing -- that drug availability would be the same either way -- why on earth should the policy be maintained? PRO states, "The government isn't distracted by this, they are only keeping an extra eye out for it as well as other crimes. If a cop witnessed a murder, and then noticed an innocent bystander doing heroin, he'd still go after the murderer." There are entire divisions of police and detectives dedicated to drug enforcement -- of course these resources could be directed elsewhere. PRO states, "If the U.S. stopped this war on drugs, it wouldn't prevent people from using/continuing to use drugs. What destroys the family unit is the use of drugs. The last thing discontinuing the war on drugs would do is prevent drug use." and, "you would still be separated from your family if you underwent treatment. You just wouldn't be in a jail, but rather in rehab" I was speaking of the family destruction that occurs when non-violent drug users are taken from their families and thrown in jail, instead of getting treatment (as is used for alcohol and gambling abuse), which has been shown to be both cheaper and more effective. Jail only increases criminality and addiction. Treatment need not necessarily include isolation from family. PRO states, "Whether you get treatment, prison or both depends on the situation and the judge. Enforcement of these policies has nothing to do with war itself, as the war only makes it illegal. The court determines your punishment." Yes, but these discriminatory policies are a known harm of the war on drugs. This discrimination shows that the war on drugs is being harmfully implemented -- the only meaningful way we can judge a policy is based on the reality of its implementation. Pro states, "I don't see how switching needles encourages drug use. Does that have anything to do with the resolution?" It absolutely is topical, because one of the impacts of the war on drugs has been the elimination of these needle trading programs, the absence of which has worsened the spread of AIDS and other blood borne diseases. Pro states, "Morphine is a painkiller. Other drugs, such as the ones I showed in my first argument, are too dangerous to be used as painkillers" You give no evidence that these drugs would be too dangerous to be used in certain situations as painkillers medically -- the reality is, the reason the phrase "medical marihuana" exists at all is precisely because the medical profession has found that it is useful for pain management. I stated, "Finally, instead of being able to admit drug use and get help, as is the case for alcoholics (Alcoholics Annonymous), or problem gamblers (Gamblers Annonymous), for example, drug users often cannot get help for fear of being thrown in jail." And PRO's response is, "Like you mentioned before, there is treatment." PRO's response makes little sense -- my point was that drug users can often not come forward to get the help they need, for fear of prosecution. I can only conclude that is is a dropped argument, and PRO agrees with me. Clearly ending the war on drugs would enable more addicts to get the help they need. PRO responds, "And cutting all anti-drug funding would solve any of this? Also, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime." Do people get their beer Al Capone these days? No, they get it from respected, regulated sources. Ending the war on drugs would take drug money away from gangs and violent crimnals, and end the other harms to which I referred. PRO states, "We don't have to cut spending in that area ... Also, these people are incarcerated for their unwise choices of illegal drug use." Again PRO begs the question. Secondly, of course people are sent to jail because of drug use, we are discussing the wisdom of these policies. Are people sent to jail because of poor choices in abusing alcohol, cigarettes, or junk food? No, they get help. PRO states, "Nicotine is forbidden for minors and in most public areas. And, once again, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime." Minors are not yet capable of taking full responsibility for their actions. And of course a crime is a crime -- such a statement is meaningless when we are discussing what should and should not be a crime. Pro states, "... I can just as easily argue, "Cutting military funding will solve this budget problem" ... you can't blame one specific topic of overspending for underfunding of another topic." So, if I steal from you, it's not a harm as long as you dropped some quarters in the gutter too? Of course having to spend billions of dollars is a harm, PRO is being absurd. Pro writes, "I stated that to show that you were contradicting yourself; you worry about the spending, yet advocate mass rehab." I quoted studies that show that treatment is both more effective and less expensive than imprisonment. PRO states, "Good idea. However, you just helped me, as this would be considered part of a "war on drugs" It is prohibition that gives the criminals control, as has been shown time and time again ... Pro states, " ... the war on drugs is hardly connected to poverty. The USE of drugs may be, but not anti-drug movements ..." PRO does not think that imprisoning the primary wage earner in a family would cause poverty? I will now respond to PRO's last points: a) The costs, including local enforcement and imprisonment are certainly north of 50 billion, as I have shown (and that's not including the huge negative econimic impact of the war on drugs, or possible revenue from taxation). This is a significant amount of money by any measure ... b) Pro states, "If the war on drugs isn't helping, then stopping it certainly won't do any better". Since there are many known harms of the war on drugs, if it is failing to bring drug use down, why on earth keep it? c) There are huge blocks of money and personel set aside for drug enforcement -- PRO's bored cop on a streetcorner example is simply not typical of how law enforcement works. d) How can drugs themselves incarcerate anyone? This makes no sense at all. In conclusion, I have shown that there are many known harms of the war on drugs. My opponent has not shown that there are any benefits of the war on drugs, and indeed has agreed with me that it does not reduce drug usage. Why should any program, with all these harms, and few if any benefits, be continued? Vote CON, for all these reasons and others. Thanks!