All drugs should be legalized and regulated

There is no end game to the war on drugs I agree. But this is not a reason to give up. The war on terrorism is not winnable. Do you suggest giving up and allowing terrorists free reign to plan, train for and execute attacks? No you should not. You should use all available resources to find terrorists and make them face justice. The battle against racial inequality is not winnable. Do you just give up and accept racism? No you do not. The point is there are numerous things in life that you are never going to eliminate entirely but it is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to contain the problem more effectively and reduce the damage it does. I am a farmer. Each year I spray my crops for weeds. Depending on how much money I am willing to spend the wider range of weed species I will eliminate from my crops. Their are many different types of weeds that have varying effects on the crops. I have to make decisions based on a variety of factors. The cost of sprays, The level of weed presence in the crop, The amount of damage caused by the weed and the value of the crop. No matter what I do there will always be some weed species I have not considered or some that somehow evade the sprays through late growth or spray resistance. However my aim is not to eliminate weeds it is to maximise profits from the crops. Weed control is part of this process. The situation in developed economies such as the USA and the UK can be compared in this way to my situation. The main goal of these countries governments is not to eliminate drugs, It is to run a prosperous economy with high levels of economic growth while maximising the living standards and health of its citizens. The war on drugs is just one of many things governments do to achieve this goal. If these governments chose they could pile much more money into drug enforcement and reduce drug smuggling and drug use to a fraction of what it is today. However the money and resources needed to do this would be unviable. The point I am trying to make is that you need to keep something under control. In my case it could be problems with wild oats, The US government it could be crystal meth. You need to spend the right amount of money to prevent an economic and health disaster but not waste huge swathes of money to target one individual. Currently low level traffickers take a lot of the flack for smuggling. This is wrong I agree. Instead of viewing this as a reason for legalization and regulation, I think the approach needed is to offer these individuals significant reductions in sentances for help tracking down and arresting the big players in sting operations and major police raids. Also offer witness protection to these people through things such as changing identity and place of residence. In my view alcohol and tobacco are dangerous substances. If they were invented today they would never be legalized. In my view these substances should also be banned. It is no coincidence that the two legalized and regulated substances are the two most consumed dangerous substances. The fact alcohol and tobacco are legal despite all of the known health risks and education programmes shows how legalizing and regulating production of a substance increases the amount of the substance is consumed and the number of people who are affected by it. This is because people are deterred by consuming illegal substances. Yes it is true not everybody is but the vast majority of citizens find the thought of lurking around in dark alleys looking for a cannabis dealer less enticing then walking into the newsagents and buying a packet of cigarettes. This is despite the fact cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco. Most citizens generally do not like to break the law, deal with criminals or want to risk imprisonment. This is a clear deterrant for many people. As is the concern of the level of safety of an unregulated substance being sold by a criminal illegally. Legalization and regulation would increase the problems I have repeated many times in this debate. Another factor to consider is the damage done to town centres caused by having rows of drug stores, one for each substance as my opponent suggests. It would be harmful in numerous ways. The more drug stores the more chance people are going to use drugs. It normalizes drugs. It also sends a message to people drugs are acceptable and safe to use. Children would grow up used to the horoin shop next to the sweet shop and would be more likely to want to try heroin. The damage done to town centres images would also be considerable. Ten or fifteen shops selling drugs would make a town centre a no go area for shoppers and families and become areas of congregations of drug addicts. The economic and social implications of my opponents arguments would be horrific. I decline my opponents offer to change the terms of the debate.