Drug Legalization CP Neg

ContentsDrug Legalization CP Neg.............................................................................1

1NC......................................................................................................................... 2

2NC......................................................................................................................... 4

Solves-Crime –Violence-Corruption.....................................................................5

Solves-Economy...................................................................................................6

Solves-General.....................................................................................................7

Solves-Racism & Poverty.....................................................................................8

AT: Perm Do Both................................................................................................9

AT: Morality.......................................................................................................10

AT: Long Timeframe..........................................................................................11

AT: Not Popular.................................................................................................12

Drug Legalization CP: Aff Answers..............................................................14

No Solvency-General.........................................................................................15

No Solvency-General.........................................................................................17

No Solvency-Terrorism......................................................................................18

Un-popular.........................................................................................................19

Link to PTX........................................................................................................20

Morality.............................................................................................................21

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.O’Grady’10 [Mary Anastasia O’Grady. 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 cartels—not to prevent drugs from being smuggled into the United States or to end their consumption." This is risible. The entire raison d'être 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 won’t do anything-Columbia provesTim Padgett’13 (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 O’Neil, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, aptly pointed out in her 2011 article “How Mexico Can Win the Drug War, Colombia’s 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 Mexico’s hypernegligent ruling class is still reluctant to do . (In fact, as evidenced by one recent scandal, Mexico’s rich and powerful still seem more interested in shutting down restaurants that don’t give them

good tables.) “More than foreign security aid,” O’Neil 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 war’s long-term success, I’d be focused less on Peña Nieto’s interdiction scorecard at the moment and more on the Mexican Senate’s roll call Tuesday night. And I’d hope like hell that it really is the first installment of the Mexican elite’s own, long-overdue investment in rule of law . As for what happened on Election Day last fall in the U.S., if I were Peña Nieto I’d 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 Mexico’s 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 that’s 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. Let’s 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 doesn’t 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 proveBecker and Murphy’13 (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 corruptionCaulkins and Lee’11 (Jonathan P. Caulkins and Michael Lee. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University"Legalizing Drugs in the US: A Solution to Mexico’s 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 Wolff’09 (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 country’s prisoners are in jail for marijuana-related charges. Legalizing the drug would mean spending $11.3 billion less a year on prisons (that’s 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 substances—legalizations solvesJosh Brown’13 (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 legalizationDickson’11 (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 won’t work and doesn’t 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 provesSM’12 (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 soonHickey’13 (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 legalizationHickey’13 (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 popularPew Reasearch’13 (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 itPew Reasearch’13 (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 can’t solve—it increase consumption and won’t decrease crime ratesWilson2K (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, andruining 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 warrantsBrown’08 (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 others—usually 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 won’t work-empirics proveBrown’08 (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 problems—it only provides a quick fix solutionBrown’08 (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 legalize—heroin, 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 terrorismEdmund Hartnett’05 (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&issue_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 levelPew Reasearch’13 (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 crisisMilligan’12 (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 happenCall’09 (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? Wh en 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.