Drug Legalization CP Neg

Contents
Drug Legalization CP Neg ....................................................................................... 1
1NC .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2NC .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Solves-Crime Violence-Corruption ....................................................................................... 6
Solves-Economy .......................................................................................................................7
Solves-General ......................................................................................................................... 8
Solves-Racism & Poverty ......................................................................................................... 9
AT: Perm Do Both ..................................................................................................................10
AT: Morality............................................................................................................................ 11
AT: Long Timeframe .............................................................................................................. 12
AT: Not Popular ...................................................................................................................... 13
Drug Legalization CP: Aff Answers ....................................................................... 15
No Solvency-General .............................................................................................................. 16
No Solvency-General .............................................................................................................. 18
No Solvency-Terrorism .......................................................................................................... 19
Un-popular ............................................................................................................................ 20
Link to PTX ............................................................................................................................. 21
Morality ................................................................................................................................. 22

TO DO:
NEG:
-AT: Link to PTX
-Solvency-Terrorism
-Solvency-Instability
-Solvency-Relations

AFF:
-No Solvency-Racism & Poverty
-No Solvency-Crime-Violence-Corruption
-No Solvency-Economy
1NC

Text: The United States federal government should legalize scheduled
narcotics.
Legalizing drugs destroys the power of the cartels and decreases
violence.
OGrady10 [Mary Anastasia OGrady. An editor for the Wall Street Journal. October 11, 2010. The Economics of Drug
Violence. TheWallStreetJournal.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657304575540502615107046.html]
Powerful monopoly suppliers need to control key zones so they can guarantee an
army of contract employees. These "ants" carry the drugs over the U.S. border at a
limited number of strategic points in small shipments. Without mafia-style terror,
the cartel's domination along the route cannot be maintained. Marijuana and
weapons seized in Tijuana. Monopolistic syndicates control Mexico's cross-border
drug trade and could move north. Mexican law enforcement has been courageous in trying to confront these
monopolies, but firepower has not done the job. That's because this is an economic problem. Lower levels of violence in the U.S., despite
widespread availability of drugs, and an improved picture in Colombia, where cocaine still flows, are best explained by competition and the
smaller scale of the operators. It wasn't always that way in Colombia. In Mexico it could also change. To help
Mexico deal with this "antitrust" problem, the U.S. has to recognize that
competition in the narcotics sector is preferable to the monopolistic syndicates
that threaten the state and could move north. But this would require greater flexibility from U.S. drug warriors.
Some progress may be in the making on marijuana, and Mexicans will be watching the California ballot initiative that asks the electorate to
approve the legalization of the ubiquitous weed. It is far from clear that Proposition 19, as it is known, will pass. The combination of
conservatives who fear that legalization would transform us into a hash-happy heap of hippies, drug warriors who make a living off of the
criminalization of pot smoking, and gangsters whose profits are tied up in prohibition could be enough to defeat it by a narrow margin.
Nevertheless, the competitiveness of the "yes" vote on this proposition suggests that attitudes toward "grass" have generally softened, and
that many Americans would prefer the business be run legally. For sure, the U.S. market is robust, and "medical marijuana" looks like a way of
legalizing without admitting to it. There is also the fact that the stuff seems to move around the country quite easily, demonstrating some
tolerance on the part of U.S. law enforcement for the retail sector that distributes it. More competition in marijuana production and
distribution in the U.S. would help beleaguered Mexico. As it stands now, the gangsters have good reason to pull
out all the stops to get their marijuana across the border where the market is
large, barriers to distribution are low and prohibition adds value. Profit margins
are not huge but the sales volume is there. Mexican officials estimate that the
marijuana business makes up more than half of the Mexican cartels' income.
Legalizing grass in the U.S. would mean increased competition for Mexican
exporters and lower profit margins, thereby depriving the monopolies of
important income. The bigger problem for Mexico is U.S. cocaine demand. Here there seems to be at least some recognition
among drug warriors of what hasn't worked. Wrote former Drug Enforcement Administrator Robert Bonner in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs
magazine: "The goal must be clear. In Colombia, the objective was to destroy the Cali and Medellin cartelsnot to prevent drugs from being
smuggled into the United States or to end their consumption." This is risible. The entire raison d'tre of the last 40 years of U.S.drug policy
abroad has been to stop supply in order to reduce demand in the U.S. Of course when this plan backfired and Colombian cartels grew more
powerful, American and Colombian authorities had to adjust. But their war was predicated on the belief that interdiction of supply could
diminish U.S. drug consumption. If Mr. Bonner is now backing away from that argument, it can only be because he is looking at the numbers.
Andean cocaine production in 2008 was down only 8% since 1999, and even that
might be explained by a shift in preferences in the U.S. Analysts and policy makers
agree that a crackdown on Caribbean narco-routes has driven the business
through Mexico, though it hasn't reduced U.S. drug use. The economist I talked to
argued further that if cocaine moved more easily through the Caribbean as it once
did and the Mexican border were more porous, it would be harder for a big cartel
to monopolize the traffic, even through violence. It's an interesting theory and of course runs totally
counter to the direction of U.S. policy. But if that policy is proven wrong, it wouldn't be the first time in the long history of the drug war.

AND-Legalizing would deprive the cartels of money and save billions for the US;
transforming the security wont do anything-Columbia proves
Tim Padgett13 (Tim Padgett. "Legalizing Marijuana and Other Ways the U.S. and Mexico Can Win the Drug
War." World Legalizing Marijuana and Other Ways the US and Mexico Can Win the Drug War Comments. N.p., 3
May 2013. Web. <http://world.time.com/2013/05/03/how-obama-and-pena-nieto-can-win-the-drug-war/>.)
Washington ought to know this already after its happier experience more than a
decade ago in Colombia where the billions the U.S. poured into antidrug aid
bore fruit largely because Colombia finally made the effort to strengthen rule of
law. Shannon ONeil, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, aptly pointed
out in her 2011 article How Mexico Can Win the Drug War, Colombias Way that Colombia emphasized
professionalizing the police and reforming [the] judicial system. It did this via
nothing less than a transformation within the country that saw its elites finally
take responsibility for public security, something Mexicos hypernegligent ruling
class is still reluctant to do. (In fact, as evidenced by one recent scandal, Mexicos rich and powerful still seem more
interested in shutting down restaurants that dont give them good tables.) More than foreign security aid, ONeil wrote, this is what
Mexico needs today: an investment by [its] elites in the safety and well-being of all
its citizens. If I were Obama, and if I were truly interested in the Mexican drug
wars long-term success, Id be focused less on Pea Nietos interdiction scorecard
at the moment and more on the Mexican Senates roll call Tuesday night. And Id hope like hell
that it really is the first installment of the Mexican elites own, long-overdue
investment in rule of law. As for what happened on Election Day last fall in the U.S., if I were Pea Nieto Id
urge Obama to do on the federal level what the states of Colorado and Washington
did: legalize marijuana. (Mexico should do the same, by the way.) That would do
two things: First, deprive Mexicos drug cartels of more than a third of the $30
billion or so they make each year. Second, save the U.S. the estimated $10 billion
it wastes every year chasing down a drug thats no more harmful than alcohol
when used in moderation. It can then steer that money to drug-demand-reduction
efforts like rehab services, which studies show do more to ease the drug plague
than conventional supply-side interdiction does. Lets focus our cross-border
angst on raising Mexican rule of law and reducing American appetite for blow, smack
and meth. Because if those efforts fail, all the other drug-war hand-wringing we do
is meaningless.

1. We can solve the whole drug war while saving $20 billion
that should
not be wasted.
2. The plan doesnt guarantee 100% solvency without any
impediments.
We achieve the same goal more effectively and faster.
2NC
Solves-Crime Violence-Corruption
Decriminalization would reduce crime-empirics prove
Becker and Murphy13 (GARY S. BECKER and KEVIN M. MURPHY. "Have We Lost the War on
Drugs?" The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 4 Jan. 2013. Web.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324374004578217682305605070.html>.)
One moderate alternative to the war on drugs is to follow Portugal's lead and decriminalize all
drug use while maintaining the illegality of drug trafficking. Decriminalizing drugs
implies that persons cannot be criminally punished when they are found to be in
possession of small quantities of drugs that could be used for their own
consumption. Decriminalization would reduce the bloated U.S. prison population
since drug users could no longer be sent to jail. Decriminalization would make it
easier for drug addicts to openly seek help from clinics and self-help groups, and it
would make companies more likely to develop products and methods that address
addiction. Some evidence is available on the effects of Portugal's decriminalization of drugs, which began in 2001. A study
published in 2010 in the British Journal of Criminology found that in Portugal since decriminalization,
imprisonment on drug-related charges has gone down; drug use among young
persons appears to have increased only modestly, if at all; visits to clinics that help
with drug addictions and diseases from drug use have increased; and opiate-
related deaths have fallen. Decriminalization of all drugs by the U.S. would be a
major positive step away from the war on drugs. In recent years, states have begun
to decriminalize marijuana, one of the least addictive and less damaging drugs.
Marijuana is now decriminalized in some form in about 20 states, and it is de facto
decriminalized in some others as well. If decriminalization of marijuana proves
successful, the next step would be to decriminalize other drugs, perhaps starting
with amphetamines. Gradually, this might lead to the full decriminalization of all
drugs.
Legalization solves violence and corruption
Caulkins and Lee11 (Jonathan P. Caulkins and Michael Lee. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon
University"Legalizing Drugs in the US: A Solution to Mexicos Problems for Which Mexico Should Not
Wait." Rethinking the War on Drugs through the US-Mexico Prism. N.p., 2011. Web.
<http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/legalizing-drugs-us108-124.pdf>.)
US and Mexican drug problems are deeply intertwined; US demand for prohibited
substances is the root cause of most violence and corruption associated with drug
trafficking in Mexico. Legalization of all substances would solve those problems,
while generating others, notably lower prices with resulting greater consumption and dependence. No one knows or can bound
the legalization-induced increase in dependence, so legalization is a gamble. Furthermore, it is an irreversible gamble because if dependence rose
sharply, that increased dependence would remain even if drugs were re-prohibited. That gamble looks very different within Mexico, where
consumption is a growing but still modest problem and most trafficked drugs are
destined for consumption elsewhere, than it does in the US, where crime and other sequelae of
the drug problem are ebbing. Risky gambles are not appealing to the US Hence, US and Mexican interests are not aligned when
it comes to the question of legalization, and Mexico should not pin its hopes on waiting for the US to legalize. Nor will conventional drug control
strategies offer a quick fix. Rather, Mexico must look for orthogonal strategies.

Solves-Economy

Legalization reduces deficits and increases tax revenue.
Miron and Waldock 2010 [Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock. Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate
Studies in Harvard's Economics Department and Katherine Waldock is a doctoral student at the Stern School of Business. October 3, 2010.
Making an Economic Case for Legalizing Drugs. The Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/making-
economic-case-legalizing-drugs]
Legalization would reduce state and federal deficits by eliminating expenditure on
prohibition enforcement arrests, prosecutions, and incarceration and by
allowing governments to collect tax revenue on legalized sales. This potential fiscal
windfall is of particular interest because California, which is facing a budget
shortfall of $19.9 billion for fiscal 2011, will vote Nov. 2 on a ballot initiative that
would legalize marijuana under California law. Advocates of the measure have
suggested the state could raise billions in annual tax revenue, in addition to saving
criminal-justice expenditure or reallocating this expenditure to more important
priorities. Should the California measure pass and generate the forecasted
budgetary savings, other states would likely follow suit. [T]he budgetary
implications of legalization are neither trivial nor overwhelming. In our recent
study, just released by the Cato Institute, we estimate the impact of legalization on
federal, state, and local budgets. The report concludes that drug legalization would
reduce government expenditure about $41.3 billion annually. Roughly $25.7
billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, and roughly
$15.6 billion to the federal government. About $8.7 billion of the savings would
result from legalization of marijuana, $20 billion from legalization of cocaine and
heroin, and $12.6 billion from legalization of all other drugs. Legalization would
also generate tax revenue of roughly $46.7 billion annually if drugs were taxed at
rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Legalization reduces crime and increase revenue
Wolff09 (Madeline Wolff. "Legalizing Marijuana Can Reduce Crime, Increase Revenue for State." N.p., 9 Nov.
2009. Web. <http://sundial.csun.edu/2009/11/legalizing-marijuana-can-reduce-crime-increase-revenue-for-
state/>.)
It is beneficial, however, to recognize the facts in the situation before forming an
opinion.
Already earning California about $14 billion a year, it has been estimated that legalizing marijuana could
generate anywhere between $1.5 and $4 billion (from taxing the drug) in revenue for
California, a boost that we most undeniably need. Additionally, our country as a whole spends $68 billion
a year on its prisoners, one-third of which are imprisoned for nonviolent drug
crimes. About half of these criminals are marijuana offenders, which means one-
sixth of our countrys prisoners are in jail for marijuana-related charges.
Legalizing the drug would mean spending $11.3 billion less a year on prisons (thats
your tax money). Monetary gain is not the only advantage to marijuana being legalized,
however. It is important to understand the medical benefits of the drug, even if it is already
lawful when used with a prescription.


Solves-General
The War on Drugs gives people an incentive to use illegal substanceslegalizations
solves
Josh Brown13 (Josh Brown. "PolicyMic." PolicyMic. N.p., Oct. 2012. Web.
<http://www.policymic.com/articles/17071/ron-paul-is-right-legalize-marijuana-now>.)
Recently, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie stated, "The war on drugs, while well-intentioned, has been a failure..."
Additional calls in rethinking this issue have come from the likes of Ron Paul, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, former California Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger, a position formerly held by President Obama, and recently hinted at by vice presidential Candidate Paul Ryan. The thing about
it is that it is unpopular with the Baby Boomers who have witnessed drugs rampant abuse.. Additionally, no doubt if drugs were legalized, they would be
continually abused. (I would also argue that they are anyways) However, as Prohibition showed us, the government
cannot change America's heart through draconian legislation, but must appeal to its sense of
conscience and intelligence. I give the example of how the United States has combated tobacco use. The United
States has not outlawed tobacco but has appealed to America's intelligence
through education and informative commercials. My generation today is far more likely to smoke marijuana
(which is illegal) than a cigarette (which is legal). It's a strange paradox, it seems the more we regulate a substance
the more its used. Today we are in an economic depression (though we deny this) and we can no
longer afford the fiscal cost and the lives brought on us by the U.S. War on Drugs.
Time to change course. Legalizing marijuana does not condone the behavior, just as legalizing alcohol doesn't condone
alcohol abuse, but it does recognize that this course of action has failed miserably. The
paradox is that the more we regulate the drug, the more it creates an economic
incentive to sell it, the more it creates an underground demand for it, and finally
the more expensive it is to stop it.
Solves-Racism & Poverty
Racism and Poverty can be cured through legalization
Dickson11 (CAITLIN DICKSON. "Will Legalizing Drugs Solve Our Race Problems?" The Atlantic Wire. N.p., 6
Jan. 2011. Web. 20 July 2013. <http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/01/will-legalizing-drugs-solve-our-
race-problems/18065/>.)
Could legalizing drugs really be the solution to the problems plaguing black America? According to John McWhorter, it could. In a New Year's Eve piece
at The New Republic, McWhorter pushes for the United States to heed former English drug official
Bob Ainsworth's recent proposal for the legalization of all drugs. McWhorter's argument is
simple: if all drugs are made available and sold at a low price at CVS or Walgreens, the
sale of drugs on the street would become obsolete, forcing, specifically, young
black males who would normally choose to make money dealing to complete high
school and get legitimate jobs. "That is neither an exaggeration nor an oversimplification," insists McWhorter, who shoots
down the argument that "this could only happen with low-skill factory jobs available a bus ride away from all black neighborhoods ... Too many people
of all colors of modest education manage to get by without taking a time machine to the 1940s, and after the War on Drugs black men would be no
exception." McWhorter paints an optimistic picture of a new black community wherein
young black men are "much less likely to wind up in prison cells or caskets, would
be a constant presence--and thus stay in the lives of their children." Black boys
would not see "drug-addicted ex-cons" as the norm, he predicts. "And something else these
boys would not grow up with is a bone-deep sense of the police--and thus whites--
as an enemy. Because there would be no reason for the police to prowl through his
neighborhood." McWhorter's immodest proposal for drug legalization as the cure-all
for black poverty and, essentially, racism in America ("No more episodes like Henry Louis Gates supposing
that an encounter with a policeman on his front porch might be about race...And no more books with titles like Wrong Place, Wrong Time: Trauma and
Violence in the Lives of Young Black Men or The New Jim Crow") has received a variety of reactions. Mostly, the general notion that the war on drugs
should end is embraced, but McWhorter's suggestion that the result will be a smooth and easy success, is questioned.
AT: Perm Do Both
The perm wont work and doesnt make any sense: There is no test of competition
here at all and its severance. Going through with the permutation means that the
aff is advocating to extend the drug war (their plan) while at the same time ending
the drug war (the CP). They either continue on with their plan and perpetuate
more violence, corruption, make the situation worse by making the cartels
stronger, and continue on with the legacy of the 25 year failed policy on the War on
Drugs or they admit that the counterplan solves without making the atmosphere
worse and tenser.
AT: Morality
Legalization is the right thing to do-Util proves
SM12 (SM. "Legalize Marijuana." N.p., Apr. 2012. Web. <http://www.studymode.com/essays/Legalize-Marijuana-
956975.html>.)
Marijuana is one of the largest growing industries. It is currently only legal for certain medical purposes. If the United States were
to legalize Marijuana, not only would we make billions of dollars in taxes but we
would also save billions of dollars in our legal system. We have people incarcerated for crimes
ranging from procession of Marijuana- to distribution of Marijuana. This ultimately cost the tax paying citizens billions of dollars a
year. We not only have to spend tax-paying dollars to our legal system for these laws,
but we also have to pay to keep these Marijuana offenders incarcerated for current
Marijuana laws. According to Legislative Analysts Office it costs us an average of about forty seven thousand dollars per year to
incarcerate an inmate in the state of California. The U.S. DOJ prison expenditure data reveals that
taxpayers are spending more than one billion dollars annually to incarcerate
Marijuana offenders. Marijuana would be ultimately produced by our government
or legal corporations and not by criminals. By creating this new industry, we
would also be creating new jobs. A natural way to see if an act is the right thing to
do (or the wrong thing to do) is to look at its results, or consequences.
Utilitarianism argues that, given a set of choices, the act we should choose is that
which produces the best results for the greatest number affected by that choice.
(Mosser, K. (2010) By using the classical theory utilitarianism, a solution to resolve
this issue would be to legalize Marijuana. Overall its for the greater good of the
United States. The United States economy would benefit from this choice by the
creation of jobs, it also saves the tax paying citizens billions dollars, this would
create massive amounts of sales tax revenues that could be re invested in other
useful resources such as education or healthcare and it would give our law
enforcement more time and resources to focus on our real drug war.

AT: Long Timeframe
We have reached the tipping point-legalization may happen soon
Hickey13 (WALTER HICKEY. "Marijuana Has Won The War On Drugs." Business Insider. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013.
Web. <http://www.businessinsider.com/war-on-drugs-marijuana-legalization-2013-4>.)
In a climate where Congress is looking to cut as much money as possible from the
federal budget, it's no surprise that a number of fiscally-oriented Republicans have
backed marijuana legalization.
What this means is that a perfect storm is developing when it comes to a potential end for the
War on Drugs. Americans like marijuana. States are interested in legalizing it. Law
enforcement is upset with the failure of the current drug policy. The federal government is
listening to the marijuana lobby. The past three U.S. presidents admitted to smoking marijuana. The momentum has shifted,
and legalization advocates think that the referendums in November were the
tipping point. Observers believe that it's likely several states will legalize marijuana soon. At this rate, the war may end
soon, and prohibition of marijuana could cease much faster than anyone expected.



AT: Not Popular
More than half of the American vote for legalization
Hickey13 (WALTER HICKEY. "Marijuana Has Won The War On Drugs." Business Insider. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013.
Web. <http://www.businessinsider.com/war-on-drugs-marijuana-legalization-2013-4>.)
Much of this is a direct response to extensive polling. Support for legalization is at an all time high. In the
nation's largest state and one potential bellwether for the future of marijuana in the U.S. California voters support
legalization 54 percent to 43 percent opposed. A Pew poll released
today found a whopping 52 percent of Americans say marijuana should be legal,
with 48 percent opposed. While Americans are divided on this, the momentum lies with those in
favor of legalization In the early 1970s, only 12 percent of Americans supported legalization, and ten years ago only a third of
Americans did. What's more, more than half of Americans 30 to 64 support legalization and 65
percent of Americans 18 to 29 support it.

Legalization is popular
Pew Reasearch13 (Pew Research. "Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana." Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press RSS. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013. Web. <http://www.people-
press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/>.)
For the first time in more than four decades of polling on the issue, a majority of Americans favor legalizing the
use of marijuana. A national survey finds that 52% say that the use of marijuana
should be made legal while 45% say it should not. Support for legalizing marijuana
has risen 11 points since 2010. The change is even more dramatic since the late 1960s. A 1969 Gallup survey found that just
12% favored legalizing marijuana use, while 84% were opposed. The survey by the Pew Research Center,
conducted March 13-17 among 1,501 adults, finds that young people are the most
supportive of marijuana legalization. Fully 65% of Millennials born since 1980
and now between 18 and 32 favor legalizing the use of marijuana, up from just
36% in 2008. Yet there also has been a striking change in long-term attitudes among older generations, particularly Baby Boomers. Half
(50%) of Boomers now favor legalizing marijuana, among the highest percentages
ever. In 1978, 47% of Boomers favored legalizing marijuana, but support plummeted during the 1980s, reaching a low of 17% in 1990. Since 1994,
however, the percentage of Boomers favoring marijuana legalization has doubled, from 24% to
50%.

The whole country favors it
Pew Reasearch13 (Pew Research. "Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana." Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press RSS. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013. Web. <http://www.people-
press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/>.)
The long-term shift in favor of legalizing marijuana has accelerated in the past
three years. About half (52%) of adults today support legalizing the use of
marijuana, up from 41% in 2010. Since then, support for legalization has increased among all demographic and political groups. Nearly
two-thirds of those under 30 (64%) favor legalizing marijuana use, as do about half or
more of those 30 to 49 (55%) and 50 to 64 (53%). There is far less support for legalization among those 65 and
older (33%); still, there has been an 11-point rise in support among older Americans since 2010. Men (57%) are somewhat
more likely than women (48%) to support marijuana legalization. Support is
comparable among racial and ethnic groups roughly half of whites (52%), blacks
(56%) and Hispanics (51%) favor legalizing the use of marijuana. Only about three-in-ten
conservative Republicans (29%) say marijuana use should be legal. Moderate and liberal Republicans are far more likely than conservatives to favor
legalization (53%). Like Republicans, Democrats are ideologically divided over legalizing marijuana. While 73% of liberal Democrats favor legalizing
use of marijuana, only about half of conservative and moderate Democrats agree (52%). Fully 70% of those who have ever
tried marijuana, including 89% of those who have tried it in the past year, say the
use of marijuana should be legal. That compares with just 35% of those who have
never tried marijuana. Support for legalization has increased since 2010 among those who
have ever tried marijuana (by six points) as well as those who have not (by 10 points).
Opinions about legalizing marijuana vary little among states that have more permissive marijuana
laws and those that do not. A majority (55%) of those in states that have legalized medical
marijuana or have decriminalized (or legalized) marijuana for personal use favor
legalizing marijuana. Yet 50% of those in states in which marijuana is not
decriminalized (or legal for any purpose) also favor its legalization.



Drug Legalization CP: Aff Answers

No Solvency-General
Legalization cant solveit increase consumption and wont decrease crime rates
Wilson2K (James Q. Wilson. "Legalizing Drugs Makes Matters Worse." Author at Ohio State. Legalizing Drugs
Makes Matters Worse. N.p., 1 Sept. 2000. Web. <http://www.physics.ohio-
state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Resources/essays/legal-drugs-No.html>.)
If only things were so simple. The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase
drug consumption under almost any reasonable guess as to what the legalization
(or more modestly, the decriminalization) regime would look like. The debate, I think, must be between
those who admit this increase and then explain why they would find it tolerable and those who admit the increase and find it intolerable. Illegal drugs--
and here I refer chiefly to cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine--have three prices that are much higher than what they would be if the sale
were legal. First, under legalization the cash price would be lower. No one knows by how much, but the most
cautious scholar says by a factor of three, the boldest one says by a factor of 20. Now take a powerfully addictive
substance, one that not only operates on but modifies the human brain by producing compelling
effects that often can only be achieved again by increasing the dosage, and ask how
many more people would buy it if its cash price were only 30 percent or even 5
percent of its current price. Unless you think that everybody who wants the drug is already using it, a most unlikely possibility,
then the answer must be--a lot. Second, under legalization the quality price would be
lower. Drugs are now purchased in most cases from people who offer no
meaningful promise of quality. You can buy cocaine or heroin that has been cut five times or 20 times, and cut with sugar or
rat poison. The Food and Drug Administration does not require accurate labeling, and unless you are a repeat customer, you probably have no idea
what you are getting. Feel like taking a chance? Buy a drug from the furtive fellow on the street corner. Third, under legalization the
search price would be zero. You would not have to search or run risks of being
mugged or arrested. Maybe you would be able to buy it in the local pharmacy, but you would get it from some dealer operating in the
open with no risk to you. The effect of cutting prices will be three fold: it will dramaticallyh increase the number of users; this increase will be
permanent, [Note this point is made obliquely and not directly in current draft.] and many aspects of society will be profoundly impacted by the drug-
incapacitated persons, for example, needing welfare, causing traffic deaths, and
ruining marriages. Cut all of these three prices--the cash cost, the risk of not getting a decent quality, and the absence of searching and running risks--
and the total price reduction would not be by a factor of 20 but probably by a factor of 50. Consumption will go up dramatically. Now what happens?
Here is where the only meaningful debate can exist. Do you think that there will be
a decrease in drug crime? Maybe--if the crime committed by users seeking money
to buy drugs and the dealers protecting their right to sell drugs falls by an amount
greater than the increase in crime committed by addicted users who are no longer
capable of holding a job.
Legalizing should not be legalized-multiple warrants
Brown08 (Lee P. Brown, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997. "Two
Takes: Drugs Are a Major Social Problem, We Cannot Legalize Them." N.p., 25 July 2008. Web.
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/07/25/two-takes-drugs-are-a-major-social-problem-we-cannot-legalize-them>.)
Illegal drugs continue to be a major problem in America. They will never be
legalized, and they should not be. Advocates of legalization argue that drug
prohibition only makes things worse. They argue that crime, the spread of HIV,
and violence are major consequences of drug prohibition. But these represent only
part of the damage caused by drug use. Consider drug-exposed infants, drug-
induced accidents, and loss of productivity and employment, not to mention the
breakdown of families and the degeneration of drug-inflicted neighborhoods.
These too are consequences of drugs. Others argue that drugs affect only the user.
This is wrong. No one familiar with alcohol abuse would suggest that alcoholism affects the user solely. And no one who
works with drug addicts will tell you that their use of drugs has not affected
othersusually family and friends. Some argue that drug enforcement should be
replaced by a policy of "harm reduction," which emphasizes decriminalization and
medical treatment over law enforcement and interdiction. But people do not use
drugs simply because they are illegal. Equally significant, effective enforcement
reduces drug supply, increases price, lowers the number of users, and decreases
hard-core drug use. There is an inverse relationship between the price of cocaine
and the number of people seeking emergency room treatment. Legalization
advocates claim widespread support. But the fact is that there is no broad public or
political outcry for the decriminalization of drugs.
No Solvency-General

Legalizing wont work-empirics prove
Brown08 (Lee P. Brown, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997. "Two
Takes: Drugs Are a Major Social Problem, We Cannot Legalize Them." N.p., 25 July 2008. Web.
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/07/25/two-takes-drugs-are-a-major-social-problem-we-cannot-legalize-them>.)
Contrary to what the advocates of legalization say about the European models,
decriminalization has not worked there. The Dutch policy of "responsible" drug use has resulted in thousands of
foreigners going to the Netherlands to buy drugs. These users then commit crimes to support their habits
and drain Dutch taxpayers to provide treatment for their addictions. The number
of marijuana and heroin users has increased significantly. The British experience of controlled
distribution of heroin resulted in the doubling of the number of recorded new addicts every 16 months between 1960 and 1967. That experiment was
ended. A 1994 resolution opposing drug legalization in Europe that was signed by representatives of several European cities stated in part that "the
answer does not lie in making harmful drugs more accessible, cheaper and socially
acceptable. Attempts to do this have not proven successful."

Legalizing does not address the core problemsit only provides a quick fix
solution
Brown08 (Lee P. Brown, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997. "Two
Takes: Drugs Are a Major Social Problem, We Cannot Legalize Them." N.p., 25 July 2008. Web.
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/07/25/two-takes-drugs-are-a-major-social-problem-we-cannot-legalize-them>.)
An effective drug policy must focus on reducing the demand for drugs through
prevention, education, and treatment without overlooking enforcement and
working with source countries. That was the policy that I developed while serving as the nation's "drug czar" under President
Clinton . The formula is simple: no demand, no supply.
In 1988, the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, chaired by Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, held hearings on the
possible legalization of drugs. The questions asked by Rangel then are equally relevant today: Which drugs would we
legalizeheroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, and PCP, as well as marijuana?
What would we do with addicts? Would we support their habit for life or pay for
their treatment? What would we do about those who are only experimenting?
Would legalization contribute to their addiction? What would prevent a black
market from emerging? Because these and other questions cannot be answered to
the satisfaction of the U.S. public and our lawmakers, America will never legalize
drugs. Legalization does not get to the problem's core. In seeking to satisfy the few, it subverts the best
interests of all. In purporting to provide a quick, simple, costless cure for crime and
violence, it fails to answer why more drug availability would not lead to more drug
use and more devastating consequences. We must, however, change our drug policy
and view drug use as a public health problem, not just a problem for the criminal
justice system.



No Solvency-Terrorism
Legalization would increase terrorism
Edmund Hartnett05 (Edmund Hartnett, Deputy Chief and Executive Officer, Narcotics Division, New York City
Police Department, New York. "Drug Legalization: Why It Wouldn't Work in the United States." The Police
Chief, the Professional Voice of Law Enforcement. N.p., 3 Mar. 2005. Web.
<http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=533&is
sue_id=32005>.)
In the aftermath of September 11, it was evident that enormous amounts of money
were part of a global terrorist network. Much of this money was hidden in ostensibly legal outlets,
primarily banks, investments, and charitable organizations. They were correctly
targeted by law enforcement agencies and, in many cases, frozen; thereby denying
terrorists access to the money. Many experts believe that terrorists are now using narcotics
trafficking to fund their activities. Although much of this activity seems to be centered in the Afghanistan and Pakistan
region (sometimes referred to as the Golden Crescent in law enforcement circles), all international narcotics investigations now have to add terrorism
to their list of concerns. Legalization would only exacerbate this problem and put more
money into the terrorists bank accounts. The DEA has identified links between
drug suppliers and terrorism. Their investigations, again primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan, have shown connections
among traffickers in heroin and hashish, money launderers, and al Qaeda members. They also suspect a drug-related connection involving al Qaeda
and the train bombings in Madrid. According to DEA, The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts,
which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used
to detonate the bombs.
Un-popular
Legalization is unpopular on the federal level
Pew Reasearch13 (Pew Research. "Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana." Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press RSS. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013. Web. <http://www.people-
press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/>.)
Nearly three-quarters of Americans (72%) say that in general, government efforts
to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth. And when it comes to
the question of whether the federal government should enforce marijuana laws in
states that have approved marijuana use, a majority (60%) says it should not.
There is agreement across partisan and demographic groups that federal
government enforcement of marijuana laws is not worth the cost. Fully 78% of
independents, 71% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans say government
enforcement efforts cost more than they are worth. Similarly, there is substantial
opposition to the federal government enforcing marijuana laws in states that
permit the legal use of marijuana: 64% of independents say the federal
government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in such states, as do 59% of
Democrats and 57% of Republicans.
Link to PTX
Legalizing marijuana would risk a healthcare crisis
Milligan12 (Milligan, Susan. "The Pros and Cons of Legal Pot." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 26 Nov.
2012. Web. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/11/26/legalization-of-cannabis-could-
spur-new-health-crises>.)
But the same argument could be made about tobacco, which is as dangerous as many drugs and legal in part because it would be politically impossible
to destroy the tobacco industry. True, cigarette smokers do not get stupid and crash cars into trees, but
they still kill themselves and others by ingesting and exhaling toxic smoke. And
while cigarette taxes indeed bring cash to local governments, we all end up paying
dearly for the added healthcare costs of caring for smokers with emphysema, lung
cancer, and other ailments. It may not be fair to subject marijuana to a higher legal
standard than alcohol or tobacco. But it may be a way to prevent a third series of
healthcare crises


Morality
It is morality that brings the strength to our nation and sets us aside from all other
countries. Any disregard for morals will be the downfall of our nation and
legalization of marijuana will make sure that will happen
Call09 (Dustin Call.News Editor "Legalization of Marijuana Is Immoral." Clarion. N.p., 9 Dec. 2009. Web.
<http://www.theclariononline.com/legalization-of-marijuana-is-immoral-1.2117295>.)
My opposition to the legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not about
politics, proven facts, or calculated data. It is about morals. My elementary school, like many others,
participated in the D.A.R.E. program, which, you remember, stands for Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education. This program continues to be taught to
today's children as well. In this program, we are taught that narcotics, tobacco, and alcohol are addictive and harmful substances and I do not believe
that one can argue logically against that. Marijuana harms the brain and impairs judgment, memory, and coherency. Teaching young
children that marijuana is harmful and that they should stay away from it, and
then turning around and legalizing it is the worst example that we can set for the
future citizens and leaders of our nation and the world. Those that say there is
nothing wrong with non-medical marijuana, let alone legalizing it for recreational
use, in my mind have low morals. Morals play a critical role in the strength of our
nation. Morals prevent us from allowing fanatical and harmful practices to
becoming acceptable or non-punishable under law; practices such as molestation,
abortion, slavery, underage drinking, child abuse, communism, and torture. While
legalizing marijuana may not be on the same level as murder or sexual crimes, that
does not lessen the wrongfulness or the immorality of the issue. Proponents of
legalizing marijuana for recreational use argue that it could generate enormous
amounts of revenue but at what cost? When did selling morals for money
become an acceptable practice, especially for Americans? Morals are what set the
United States of America apart from governments of countries such as China,
South Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan and many others. Allowing such a disregard for
morals will be the downfall of our nation. I assure you that unfathomed repercussions would occur as a result of
legalizing marijuana. It will take us one step closer to becoming like the countries that we
are working so hard to prevent from causing harm to the world. Let us draw the
line at irresponsibility and not go down this path.