The War On Drugs. Destroyer of your liberty

First, let me just reitterate our previous agreement. If drug use substantially hurts people other than the user, drugs should be illegal. We have agreed on this point throughout the debate. Somehow, this debate has shifted into historical context. I don't know how, but I'll roll with it as I can prove my point on both pretexts. First, you argue that the reason drugs are so bad is that they are illegal. This is obviously not true. Whether or not drugs are legal doesn't change their effects. Yes, illegality has made seedy drug dealers the source for drugs, but they are still harmful to your health, that can not be argued. Since they are harmful to your health, those stats I gave you earlier, about how much drug dealers cost society still hold weight. I'm not trying to debate whether or not the government should have control over welfare. The fact is that they do. Subsequently, this means that drug users cost taxpayers money because of their 'personal choice'. A LOT of money, actually. Just in case we don't believe the DOJ and their figures, drugs have other effects outside of the economic ones. Regardless of how drugs are dealt, they are addictive. The reason Coke used coke is because of its addictive nature. This addiction breeds crime, not the illegal nature of drugs. People don't knock over 7-11's for aspirin because they do not have an uncontrollable urge to take tylenol. They do, however, commit crimes or other immoral and unsocietal behaviors because of their drug use. Whether the drugs themselves are legal or not, the ramifications they have on the users outward behavior is obvious. You claim that drugs have gotten really bad because they are illegal and these terrible people have control of the drug market. Let me point out you admit later in your round that "I'm not going to say that if we legalized drugs that the crime revolving around drug use would go away". This is an obvious reason not to legalize, or go back and keep drugs legal. If legalization doesn't stop the crimes associated with drugs, why should we make/keep drugs legal and breed more users? That would just breed more crime. Also, what suggests that government sanctioned drugs would be OK, or less harmful? You claim that illegality has made drugs the monster that it is. This is historically inaccurate. The fact is, new drugs are invented because people want a better high. Take LSD as a historical example. It was invented/discovered and remained legal for a period during the late sixties. The government banned it because of its extremely dangerous nature and its effects on society as a whole. If legal drugs wouldn't have negative effects, why were all drugs that once were legal having negative effects? Drugs were legal at one point, but society still felt the negative effects and banned them. This works contrary to your belief that if drugs were legal, there would be no ill effects. If I buy the argument that our government is running some kind of anti-drug conspiracy, why is it that over 40 other nations, including the UN, have also banned the same drugs? Why is it that drug users do in fact have bad health and do get sick? Why is it that science and the culture itself proves drugs are addictive? Why do drugs ACTUALLY create criminals? Why are all of the bad effects of drugs obvious without the evil drug underworld and the tyrannical government? Next, you tell me that our economy was better when drugs were legal. I don't see any reason to 1) see why our economy was better 2) how, even if that is true, drugs get any of the credit 3) how the widespread/legal use you advocate would have made this the case. A legitimate question you seem to pose is your slippery slope argument. This "when do we stop denying rights in the name of protecting other people?" argument. This argument is a classic, but really only applies to contreversial issues. Drugs have SUCH a harmful effect, not only on the users, but on society and others, that it makes the choice to ban them obvious. Also, there is no risk here, drugs are already banned. Even in your historical scenario, banning drugs is not a rights violation because of the drastic and evident harm it does to other people. As we agreed before "If someone's actions hurt someone else, legitimately, then they shouldn't be able to do it.". I don't need to defend the legalization of other things, just prove that drugs should be illegal. The illegalization of drugs would only cause other substances that have as drastic effects on society to become illegal and based on the logic we have presented, that would be legitimate as well. In sum, the debate is based on this notion that if our actions legitimately hurt others, we shouldn't be allowed to perform those actions. This point is agreed throughout the debate. My burden is to prove that drug use, legal or illegal, harms non-users. Whether or not drugs are sold safely doesn't change the harmful effects they have. The users bad health is a burden on society evidenced by the DOJ evidence which states that drug users costs the nation $180 BILLION a year. This number would only skyrocket with legalization (now or back then), as we would see any increase (probably a big one) in the number of users. Despite their own health effects, it has been agreed that drugs breed crime. However much is irrelevant (again, probably a lot) as our government can not regulate a trade that festers unsocietal and criminal behavior. The legality of drugs would not reduce the growth and severity of the drug market. If anything, it would stimulate it, by allowing the substances to be moved and used. In this case, a government conspiracy against our rights in the name of protection is implausible due to the evident historical and societal drug trends, devoid of government involvement. The fact is, our privilege to use drugs should be denied because of the effect it has on others. At the end of the day this debate asks us the question of whether or not an increase of use that already costs us $180 Billion dollars a year, places a burden on our health systems, promotes crime and addiction as well as unsocietal behavior, and festers numerous other negative effects (even when drugs were legal) is a legitimate harm to those other than the user. If the effects are legitimate, then there should not be legal drugs, in order to protect those who do not make that choice. Our country is based on freedom and the right to make personal choices, but people should also be free from the weight of degenerative personal choices and suffering the consequences of other's actions.