The US should legalize drugs.

Thank you, fire_wings. I'm going to start with some technicalities that must be addressed. Just as a brief note (since it doesn't fit in well anywhere before the first time I mention it) we will for the most part consider marijuana an illegal drug, because it is illegal in the greater number of states in the US.I. RulesCon has violated rule #8 [1], that he may not change his arguments in round 2, and that I may not in rounds 2 and three. This rule is in place because our debate began on 11/4/16 [1], so Con has now had 12 days to craft a constructive and a rebuttal to my arguments, which is clearly not fair. I called special attention to rule #8 in the opening round, because it was not included in the last debate. As I provide that violation of rules means the offender concedes the debate, Pro should win on this basis alone. The rules have been broken, making this debate unfairly skewed toward Con.Despite clear indication that I should win based on rule violation, I will also continue to respond to Con's case and prove why we should legalize consumption of illegal drugs in the United States. I will adjust my round 3 arguments so that they actually respond to Con's brand new round 2 arguments.II. BoPCon does not need to prove legal drugs should become illegal, this is just an extra BoP he takes on. I also am not quite clear on Con's BoP analysis, because it seems he may be arguing that if he proves even one drug should be illegal, he wins the debate, which is not the case, as I clearly set up that the resolution must be looked at on balance meaning that the whole of the issue must be considered. If that is what he's arguing, I could do the same by saying "if one illegal drug should be made legal, I win." Neither of these are the case. Essentially, my BoP is to prove that it is in the best interest of the US that drugs that are currently illegal should become legal to consume, while Con's is to prove that they should not become legal. Remember: on balance.III. Re: Illegal drugs should not be legalizedA. Con's source first mentions kids and teens. Under legalization kids and teens would not have access to drugs. Like alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (in states where pot is legal) all these newly-legalized drugs would have age minimums to use them.B. From there Con attacks the harm principle, which he must have accepted as a weighing mechanism in the debate. He makes a good point: people under the influence can harm others. However, he ignores the fact that we accept certain amount of risk: alcohol is legal despite the fact that people can become more aggressive or can get behind the wheel. Speaking of driving, we can look at the speed limit: if we wanted to make everyone completely safe, the speed limit would be 5 MPH. We accept a small amount of risk for personal liberty. The vast majority of the time people consume, they do not do harm to others. Furthermore, as per my constructive, we can see that people who are jailed for non-violent drug offenses are more likely to come out violent criminals [2] which means that in the US more people will be hurt by the drug-users turned violent criminals due solely to the fact that drugs are illegal than would be hurt by users in a legal world. Finally, to completely put this argument to rest, remember that making the drugs illegal fuels the drug war and the violent cartels that terrorize much of the world. The Con world actually promotes drugs harming other people more than the Pro world. It's important to remember that it's not just consumption of the drugs we're debating, but everything leading up to that consumption also. The harm principal is upheld on both ends better in the Pro world. People can make autonomous decisions and there will be less harm to third parties.IV. AddictionA. Addiction is a sad thing; I have people close to me that have become addicted. However, that doesn't mean it's not within an individual's control. The first time an individual uses is of their own free will, which coincides with the harm principal.B. From there addiction makes it harder to deny using, but use is still somewhat under the user's control:"Addiction is a chronic disease characterized by drug seeking and use that is compulsive, or difficult to control..." [3]It's clear that addiction doesn't force them to use, it just makes it harder to stop.Addiction is harmful, but a harm that is to the individual, brought on by the individual, which means that it falls under the harm principal.C. In this sub-point I'd like to reference my constructive. I proved that legalization will actually help addicts because they will 1. Be more likely to seek treatment, since what they're doing isn't illegal and 2. Be sent to rehab, rather than prison. [2]V. Re: Legal drugs should be illegalizedA. SmokingFirst note that my opponent's source says that 58 million people are exposed to secondhand smoke, not that 58 million died or contract cancer or anything. There's also no indication a to how much exposure qualifies for what his use of the term "exposure" means. Additionally, we again have many things in our society that pose slight dangers. For example, I will again use the speed limit analogy. If you were to want to minimize deaths from automobile accidents, the speed limit would be 5 MPH everywhere. We accept certain risks in life. If you don't buy this first argument, however, smoking is already legal and this wouldn't be changed. Smoking is non-unique to the Pro world, which means that this point is irrelevant. Con cannot claim this as a harm when it exists in both worlds.B. First, we need to realize once and for all that all these legal drugs would not become illegal in the Con world. It's "The US should legalize drugs" not "The US should either legalize all drugs or no drugs should be legal." Second, Con asserts that marijuana is bad then that these drugs are worse. Two problems here. First is that Con never proves marijuana to be bad. In fact, the only reason the FDA has not supported marijuana for it's positive health benefits is because long-term, broad studies have not been conducted; however the FDA recognizes benefits under the smaller scientific studies. [5] Therefore, it's easy to be "worse" than marijuana; marijuana is good! Second, the source is biased. Of course "The Weed Blog" is going to claim that these things are worse than marijuana, they're trying to promote marijuana.C. Even if you still don't buy that Con's arguments about legal drugs being illegal are outside the realm of the resolution, reference back to my constructive: prohibiting something doesn't make it stop. This is especially true when the market has already been saturated with a product. People will still want their caffeine. They'll still want their alcohol. They'll still want their tobacco. Making all of these illegal is completely impractical. If Con is advocating making alcohol illegal, I'd urge him to study 1920-1933 in American history. It won't work for alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or any other drugs.VI. ConclusionI have given three distinct reasons for you to vote Pro in this debate. First, Con broke a rule he agreed to, which, as per the rules, means I, Pro, win. Furthermore, Con has yet to prove any unique harm to legalizing drugs that are currently illegal that do not fall under the harm principal or is not the vague assertion that "people can hurt other people" which can be done without drugs just as easily, which I refuted. Finally, I have proven unique benefits to legalization of drugs, including liberty, health, economics, the drug war, and prisons. For all these reasons I can see nothing but a vote for Pro. Thank you.VII. Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.dailykos.com...[3] https://www.drugabuse.gov...[4] https://www.drugabuse.gov...