Drug Legalization

Counter-Case I: The Role of Government Pro desires to see burden of proof on my end, so I shall provide it later in this Counter-Case. Pro has pointed out that driving, despite deaths, is still legal, but the problem here is that Driving, unlike methamphetamine, is a very important, central aspect of our society. The United States essentially runs on it's roads.{1} Unlike certain drugs, Driving has the necessity factor to justify it's legality. In it is worth noting that those who make the road dangerous, lose the right to drive on it.{2} Pro says that the laws in this country do not punish people preemptively on the basis that they could hurt someone, however she just prior points out that drunk driving is illegal. Note that if I get pulled over while drunk, I do in fact get arrested, even if I haven't hurt anyone yet. I am arrested on the grounds that I could have hurt someone. She mentions that if everyone finds a chaperone, then all would be well, but the law doesn't work on "if everyone just did the right thing". Why then have laws? We have laws because not everyone does the right thing.1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov...2] http://www.duifoundation.org...Counter-Case II: History and the War on Drugs Pro contorts my words here, saying I support "stronger enforcement", which implies more men, money, and power. What I have suggested is better enforcement, which means better tactics, and smarter ways of dealing with things. Pro calls my responce "over-simplified" in an attempt to discredit it, however this debate is not about the minor details of fighting the drug war, it's about the legality of drugs, and 9K character count doesn't give much room to do both. She says that criminalization creates a black market, however in truth, legalization would cause the producers to move to other sources of illegal income, because when a product is taxed, it loses profitability. This won't decrease production of course as legitimite business will replace that, but it will also not decrease the black market for long. Pro points out the cost of the WOD as over a trillion dollars (actually conflicting with her earlier statement of 3 Trillion), however this is misleading, as Pro fails to point out that the US has been fighting drugs for awhile (I should point out here that drugs, like all crime, will never go away. Simply because crime will always be there, doesn't mean we should just stop fighting it), and costs a much less frightening 40 or so Billion a year,{3} of which 15 or so billion are federal, under 0.5% of our total Federal Expediture of 3.5 Trillion.{4} Her statement about the increase in drug use ignores the immense socio-economic variable which influence such a matter, including the recession. Pro has presented a massive Appeal to Emotion in her attack of the prison system. This debate is about the Drug War, not the living conditions of prison (which is an argument for fixing the prison system), and attacking prisons in general. She has also brought under attack the sheer scale of inmates, which is an argument for finding alternatives to prison (such as switching to a more fine based system of punishment). I pointed out the Mafia in the last round, and I'll again use them as an example. Illegal enterprises will not go legal. They will switch to other illegal activities, since that it where the money is. Groups such as the Mafia have shown this. To say they will go legitimate now is to ignore why they went illegal in the first place. Profits. Pro shows that the number of prison inmates has increased dramatically, but this is more a credance to the increased ability of police officers to locate and deal with criminals. Again I point out that the size of the prison system is an argument to switch to a system based on fines, with prison as a major punishment. Pro has pointed out the militarization of the police, and bad police tactics, but again, that is an entirely different debate, as police militarization was likely to happen even without drugs, and bad tactics shows a need to change those tactics, not throw in the towel. When you make one bad move in a war, you don't surrender the whole army, you change how you fight.. Pro mentions that low-income citizens are often targeted, however that is because low-income citizens are most likely to be involved in the activities where police can catch them. We shouldn't become more lenient just so it doesn't look like we are being too mean to one group.Pro then proceeds to use the race card by pointing out that so many members of the prison system are blacks, again getting off course. Instead of showing why drugs should be legal, she is making points for why we should fix the issue of racism in the police force. Two very different matters altogether. Next Pro uses an appeal to emotion by mentioning children and our privacy, yet again a sign that we need to fix how our police go about their business, rather then why we should just give up the effort.Pro's arguments up to this point in the round has, the opening statement about finances aside, revolved heavily around arguments that show how the police force needs to review and change it's means of going about matters, rather then why we should give up. The biggest indicator being that many her points would likely still be issues today even without drugs. Again I say many, not all.3] http://www.drugsense.org...4] http://tinyurl.com...Counter-Case III: Drugs and Violence Pro again points out the danger of alcohol, and again I point out the issues with the idea that simply because there is something more dangerous that is legal, that we should legalize all things less dangerous. I do not support returning to prohibition, which failed, as I've pointed out, because of lack of proper enforcement. However that doesn't change the fact that, if anything, her argument better suits total prohibition rather then legalization. But with such things as guns, which one our society allows is based on which ones it feels it has rights to. We feel we have the right to alcohol. Very few people would love to see cocaine and opium freely sold. I have not defeated my argument by listing the mafia. Pro actually defeats her argument by implying that they would take a different approach this time. Rather then turn legal, they simply switched to another source of illegal profit. Why would we trust them to take a different path? We can't. They will simply switch to something else illegal (of which they have plenty of options).Counter-Case IV: Health and Public Safety Pro tells us that drug use is "victumless", however she only shows the last part of the system. On the side of the producers and distributers, it has quite a few victums. Every single person who is addicted to Opiates who wants to quite is a victum. Every person who has ever OD' is a victum. To allow these people to profit off of a poison that few can easily escape is simply a sign of a truely moralless society. Again Pro suggests laws that waits until a victum is had, putting everyone in danger of people who aren't technically breaking the law. Yet. By the time police could finally act, there's already a victum. Pro points out that ones "personal" choices are no one elses business, when in fact everyones actions impact those around them. And in a world so increasingly tied together by fathomlessly vast bonds, we can't afford to wait until after others become victums.Counter-Case V: Proposed Alternatives Pro now tells us that we should legalize these drugs, and then tell everyone not to use them. What reasonable society would do this? If the drugs are so dangerous as to require us to try to keep people away from them, why would we let them have it? Pro then points out medicinal uses. This works, in some circumstances, for some drugs, but this doesn't justify drugs such as coccaine and herion. After this Pro proceeds to reuse earlier arguments which have been dealt with, before finishing by suggesting a reform to our we deal with drug users. I should point out, we can give court-mandated aid, in leui of prison, without legalization.Argument: What is a drug? And how regulation defeats the Resolution To keep it short, if we legalize "all drugs" as pro requests, we would have to legalize the sale of literally anything that can be considered a drug. I could dilute draino to the point where drinking a small cup isn't lethal, and that would have to be legal, as it is a drug (for comparison, Coccaine basically this, but with several toxic chemicals instead of one {5}). Pro could say "regulate it", however regulation would decrease the strength of some drugs. As many people tend to require stronger doses,{6} a black market would arise for stronger illegal versions of drugs. Therefore regulation would create illegal drugs, defeating the resolution.5] http://tinyurl.com...6] http://tinyurl.com...==Unitomic==