The U.S. should legalize all drugs

I will now refute it to the best of my ability. Overdose Pros soruce claims that 86% of drug OD's are due to mixing heroine and cocaine. First of all, this shows how drugs are bad providing more offensive ground for the negative. Secondly, I offer a counter-plan that fufills my criteria in the resolution, legalize one of those drug kinds, and you can thus turn the Aff's advantage of drug overdose reduction to my side. Thirdly, his claim of "the excessive taboo on psychoactive substances prevents us from saying anything knowledgeable about them to the public" is neither warranted, nor sourced; and indeed illogical. The media, if anything, glorifies drug abuse said taboo is non existant at best, and the other way around at worst. Pro makes a compelling point in that the inconstistency between drug quality/quantity causes overdose, however it is not sourced and can be considered dropped for this round. Furthermore, he provides no solvency. Look at the status quo, there are many different kinds of cigarettes[1] and alcohols, so why does he assume that legalized drugs would all be to the same standard? Adulterated substancesPro makes a strong argument in the poor quality of drug's on the street, he doesn't explain how this is a negative thing. Look at his source, the substances described ( talcum powder, sugar, or even another cheaper drug. ) are harmless, save for the last. The only harmful substances brought up by my Opponent are on the European market, not th American so his evidence is non topical. Pro also continues his overdose argument arguing that the impurity among drugs increases the likelihood, however it's unwarranted. While I seriously doubt any surveys have been taken on the matter, it's common knowledge that people generally visit the same drug dealer. While it's probable that the purity of the drugs varies, it is improbable that a drug dealer would substantially alter his drugs. His customers would notice, and even possibly OD losing them for good. That is not profitable. So Pros argument can be shown to be insignificant at best. It's interesting that my opponent consistently argues the likelihood of an overdose, when this is simply offensive ground for the Con. The dangers of these substances are enough to justify a societal rejection of them and criminalization. Despite his misguided attempts at solvency, the risk of an overdose is overwhelmingly a point support my side and is turned. AIDSPros point can be shown irrelevant quite easily. The Negative offers a counterplan of creating the "needle-exchange-centers", without legalization. As early as 2002 this plan has been advocated[2]. Making syringe access easier provides solvency without needing legalization. Cartels"Putting the cartel's leaders in prison actually makes the problem worse because the cartels will now experience power-struggles for who will become the next kingpin, which has its own casualties" TURN: Drug dealers killing eachother is beneficial to society. Pros argument that crime will decrease due to legalization can be shown as false on many accounts. For one thing, there is a solid correlation between drugs and crime. The National Center for Victims of Crime[3] reports:"In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes. "Nearly 1/4th of violent offenses were committed under the influence. That is no coincidence. Drugs increase the probability of a person making an irrational decision including a crime, so logic shows us that drugs are a primary component in many crimes. In regards to the cartels objection, James R. Mcdonough, the director of the Florida office for Drug Control[4] writes: Looking only at crime and drugs, it is apparent that drugs drive crime. While it is true that no traffickers, dealers or manufacturers of drugs would be arrested if al ldrugs were legal, the same could be said of drunk drivers if drunken driving were legalized. Indeed, we could bring prison population down to zero if there were no laws at all. But we do have laws, and for good reason. When we look beyond the crime driven by drugs and factor in the lost human potential, the famil ytragedies, massive health costs, business losses and neighborhood blights instigated by drug use, it is clear that the greater harm is in the drugs themselves, not in the laws that curtail their use. We have laws for a reason. Collateral damage is unavoidable. Besides, this only shows that we need to reform our methodology to fighting drugs, not legalize them. Mcdonough further writes: "Law-enforcement officers routinely report that the majority (i. e. , between 60 and 80 percent) of crime stems from a relationship to substance abuse, a view that the bulk of crimes are committed by people who are high, seeking ways to obtain money to get high or both. These observations are supported by the data. The national Arrests and Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program reports on drugs present in arrestees at the time of their arrest in various urban areas around the country. In 2000, more than 70 percent of people arrested in Atlanta had drugs in their system; 80 percent in New York City; 75 percent in Chicago; and so on. For all cities measured, the median was 64.2 percent. The results are equally disturbing for cocaine use alone, according to Department of Justice statistics for 2000. In Atlanta, 49 percent of those arrested tested positive for cocaine; in New York City, 49 percent; in Chicago, 37 percent. Moreover, more than one-fifth of all arrestees reviewed in 35 cities around the nation had more than one drug in their bodies at the time of their arrest, according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse"So the crime caused by drugs outweigh my opponents contention. Turn the crime argument to the Con side. Another justification for drug criminalization can be found in the devastating effects they have on the person taking them, the family, and society. Since I am running out of time I will further elaborate on this during my next round. The resolution is negated. Please vote Con.1. . http://incompetech.com...2. . http://www.publichealthlaw.net...3. . http://www.ncvc.org...4. "Liberalizing Drug Policies Would Increase Crime and Violence" by James R. McDonough