Should all drugs be legalized?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should all drugs be legalized?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

All drugs should not be legalize that would be really dangerous

You're asserting danger without defining it. Danger compared to what, exactly? Prohibition has killed more people through overdoses, gang violence, and contaminated supplies than any legal regulated market could. Why is hypothetical risk worse than proven carnage?

Everybody would be able to buy lots of dangerous drugs,it would be really risky

That's just restating the problem, not explaining it. People already buy dangerous drugs—they're just buying them from criminals who cut them with fentanyl. Legal markets require purity testing and dosing. Which kills more people: regulation or the black market?

Legalizing them would open the door to gangs controlling everything is a legal way,the black market would take over the countrt

You've got it backwards. Legalization *destroys* gang profit margins by undercutting their prices with legal competition. Portugal decriminalized drugs and gang violence dropped. Why would criminals dominate a market where they can't compete on price or safety?

Portugal's a tiny country with a fraction of America's drug demand. You're ignoring that legalization creates massive new markets—cartels don't disappear, they just go legit. Mexican drug lords already run legitimate businesses alongside trafficking. Legalization doesn't kill the black market, it gives criminals legal cover to expand their empires.

You're confusing legalization with legitimacy. A cartel can't "go legit" and keep smuggling—that's self-sabotage. Legal producers undercut them on price instantly. Yes, some criminals diversify, but they abandon drug trafficking when it's no longer profitable. Mexico's cartels thrive because prohibition creates scarcity premiums. Remove that, and their entire business model collapses. How does a trafficker compete against a licensed producer selling at cost?

You're assuming cartels operate like rational businesses. They don't. Mexican cartels already run legal enterprises—construction, restaurants, real estate—while trafficking drugs. They don't abandon smuggling when it's profitable; they just add another revenue stream. Legalization doesn't destroy them, it gives them a regulated market to infiltrate while their black market operations continue untouched. You can't undercut a trafficker selling to people who want illegal drugs anyway. Legalization creates two markets, not one. Cartels dominate both.They kill people

You're describing infiltration of legal markets, not drug trafficking profitability. Yes, cartels run restaurants—low-margin legitimate fronts. But if legal cocaine costs $2 a gram and black market costs $80, rational consumers choose legal. The "people who want illegal drugs anyway" narrative is fantasy. Nobody prefers sketchy powder over regulated product at 1/40th the price. Your two-market theory requires consumers to voluntarily overpay for danger. Why would they? Cartels kill because prohibition creates the scarcity that funds their violence—remove the profit, violence follows.

Violence is the root of all evil then

No—profit is. Violence is just the tool cartels use to protect it. Legalization eliminates the profit, not through moral conversion but through basic economics. If drugs were worthless, would cartels still kill over them?