Harm Principle, And Cost-Benefit Analysis

Pro says “Con drops my entire case. Extend my argument that drugs are awesome, the harm principle, and my cost/benefit analysis of legalization vs prohibition.”

To be clear, I did not drop these arguments, I just followed a typical debate structure only presenting my case in round two. I will now address pro’s case.

“Drugs are awesome” Pro presents an appeal to his personal experience with drugs. he also argues that “unless you've done lots of drugs, you probably don't know how educational and life-changing they are.” I am not sure how serious I can take that kind of statement. Is something being “awesome” some kind of justification for legality? What if a pedophile said “sex with minors is awesome and unless you’ve had sex with a minor

As an adolescent I had friends tell me that they were experimenting with drugs in hopes of inducing a type of religious experience. I thought I would try it… I found my experience to be artificial, superficial and in no way beneficial. The cause of deadening of your senses, or an over sensitivity is interesting, perhaps fascinating but overall dangerous and unpredictable.

“The Harm Principle” Pro quotes Mill “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” And yet dismisses my argument stating “the issue in this debate isn't whether drug use is harmful or even net harmful.” Surely if the harm principle is to be applied, and drugs cause harm, then it is reasonable under the harm principle to make them illegal.

I refer you to Premise 2 of the first part of my argument. Drugs are harmful. Pro says “drugs aren't inherently harmful. The harms are caused by the circumstances in which someone consumes drugs.” This is silly, could I not say the same about his “drugs are awesome” argument. Pro is not arguing that drugs are awesome, rather the benefits of consuming drugs are

To this pro says “these aren't inherently bad things. And doing heroin or cocaine don't guarantee you'll experience these things. These are potential risks.” Pro, If death is not an inherently bad thing… what is? Pro is correct to say there is no guarantee that these negative effects will be the result. However, they are the side “effect” of taking those drugs. In other words, the impact of taking some drugs like heroin is negative. It is far more likely that you will have these negatives if you take the drugs than if you did not.

Remember, the resolution is to legalize “all” drugs. Not just some. It is evident that some drugs are inherently harmful. It is not a stretch to assume that someone who’s mood is altered, having hallucinations, is paranoid, prone to erratic and violent behavior, and/or having suicidal thoughts poses a threat to themselves and others. Thus applying the harm principle to this debate supports the illegality of some drugs. Legalizing drugs obviously would increase the consumption of such drugs. The impact being