Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal.

1. Harms and Liberties A) Con's first point is that some of these drugs elicit guaranteed harms. My response: WHO CARES! It is not the nature of these harms that has been in question; it's whether or not the government has a right to tell people not to do something simply because it can be considered dangerous to their own person. Moreover, again not everybody is negatively impacted by these drugs in a dramatic or life threatening way. B) Con's next point is that the government's obligation is to preserve life. Nowhere in any government legislation does it EVER say that the government's obligation is to preserve life. On the contrary, protecting liberty (freedoms) is the essential concept on which our government was founded. The only way in which preserving life is a priority is when it comes to property rights, i.e. one's person is their own property and so the government should take measures to protect it from one trying to harm another. As I said, in terms of self-harm, there is no conflict of property rights or ownership. Moreover, one indeed has the right to self harm. If I were alone on a deserted island and hurt myself, whose rights would I be violating? Nobody's. Rights are entitlements that you are born with and revolve solely around the SELF. Assuming that Con would say I'd be violating my own rights in causing myself harm, I would call him a giant hypocrite :) 2. The Purpose of Government A) Again, my opponent seems to be under the impression that the right to life is of utmost government importance. I have stated why this is simply not the case. Con's assertion about the government's purpose is simply rooted in his opinion, as I've noted that nowhere does it ever say in legal history that the government's responsibility is as such. B) Next Con implies that I have supposedly dropped his argument regarding people's irresponsible decision making. He said that since people continue to do things that harm them, it proves that they do not have the capacity to make proper decisions regarding their own livelihood. I absolutely did not drop this argument. My response was that people continue to do things that harm themselves ALL the time, once again including but not limited to: sun bathing, poor diet, alcohol consumption, stress, lack of sleep, microwave use, excessive cell phone use, unnecessary plastic surgery, etc. Note that NONE of these things are illegal, and moreover, I disagree entirely that the government (i.e. corrupt law makers no more enlightened than you or I) should become so grossly excessive that it feels it has the right to dictate the ways in which people live their lives. This is the very tyranny Jefferson has warned against. 3. Manipulated Sources A) Con implies that my cited reference makes the claim that using marijuana results in schizophrenia-like symptoms. Instead, what my source says is that marijuana can have this TRANSIENT (i.e. temporary) effect. To be specific, the source notes "Some subjects developed temporary symptoms similar to those of schizophrenia, usually lasting ONE HALF HOUR TO ONE HOUR." In other words, for a very short amount of time (!), users can possibly exhibit some schizophrenic-like symptoms like paranoia, problems with memory and attention, and thought disorder. The site notes that additionally, as expected, THC - the chemical that makes marijuana effective - also induces euphoria. In my experience, the euphoria has always trumped anything negative that smoking may cause. However, I acknowledge that this varies depending on the individual. So, why should my smoking be inhibited if I am okay with the minor harms that it brings? There are far more dangerous things that are perfectly legal which I could be enjoying instead. And so I ask Con: Is the real issue here SAFETY? Or is it your authoritarian mentality about blindly following government regulation? To conclude this point, note that once again, my opponent has manipulated a source in this debate to fulfill a false agenda... hey, much like a politician! Cody, I think I know what type of career you should consider :D B) Speaking of our ridiculous government, Con mentions that ecstasy is being made a class B drug as opposed to A (the most harmful drugs) specifically because it is considered harmful. Okay, in a system where the "Class" of a drug determines its potential harm on the public, how does this make any sense?! This is just one example of the backwards logic implemented by our flawed government officials. Anyway, in discussing misrepresentation of the harms of ecstasy, what I was referring to were my two points that (1) Researchers found only SUBTLE changes to cell architecture and decreased blood flow in some brain regions, which is hardly a big deal, and (2) Any "brain damage" caused by MDMA is almost insignificant, AND, research does not prove its permanent! C) Con's final point on this issue is that a researcher has claimed that they cannot conclude ecstasy, even used in small doses, is safe for the brain. Well no kidding! I never said that these drugs were necessarily SAFE; however, that doesn't mean that they are severely harmful either. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with my points about liberty and the government, etc. 4. Back to Government A) I have never denied that there ought to be mutual respect between people and government; however, I stand by my statement that the government should indeed fear the people. What Con has failed to realize is that the majority of people would never tyrannize or oppress the government; to do so would not be in their best interest. Indeed it would be most beneficial for the people to maintain and uphold a just government that protects rights. In dismantling the government, you would only be discrediting a body that aims to protect your values. So, it is highly unlikely that a successful and just government would ever be over-turned by the majority. I disagree with you entirely and feel that the government IS a servant; it protects and serves the people! B) Con writes that people's desires shouldn't take top priority. I agree, if those desires include infringing upon the rights of others! Keep in mind that I am NOT advocating the ad populum or appeal to tradition fallacies. Instead, I am shedding light on the obvious fact that our country's appetite for drugs is insatiable and has been since our inception. In that case, if the people don't want their personal rights to be infringed upon regarding what they ingest into their bodies, then the government should not keep trying to (UNSUCCESSFULLY) repress that reality - especially since it costs the tax payers money. Now, if my opponent were to suggest that a majority of the people don't care about these laws because they don't take drugs (which is untrue anyway - more about that in a second), he would be hypocritical as that would be a prime example of the very ad populum fallacy he brings up. "A survey published this month in PLoS Medicine, a journal of the Public Library of Science, suggests that despite tougher drug policies in the U.S., Americans were twice as likely to have tried marijuana than the Dutch with its permissive marijuana laws... Researchers found that 42% of people surveyed in the U.S. had smoked marijuana" [1]. C) In regard to why we should impose restrictions on pot and MDMA similar to those of tobacco, again I did NOT drop this argument -- I stated very clearly that this would be done to protect EVERYONE'S rights. Those what wish to exercise their right to use drugs can, and those who don't will be protected in the sense that it will be kept away from them (like second-hand smoke). 5. Dropped Arguments Unlike Con, I have NO more characters. Fortunately I addressed all of his concerns anyway (that I in fact did not drop any of those arguments!), in this round or the last. Please check back and vote accordingly. Thanks for the debate! Source: [1] http://www.ti...