The state should not pass legislation regarding drugs.

It has been a lively and enlightening debate. I acknowledge that I have left many points and counterpoints unaddressed, and I will leave those and more issues unaddressed, granting Pro the last word on those topics. For my closing argument, I will focus very strongly on a single point presented by Pro: the contract analogy. To quote Pro:Further, he tries to make this argument about drug use reducing agency. Problem is, he's approaching this retrospectively, which is problematic. If I enter into an employment contract, they may stipulate that I can't drink, that I can't work anywhere else, that I have to work for low wages, etc. It may be the case that consenting to the terms of this contract really binds me; however, we cannot say that my agency is lessened simply because I look back on the decision, realize I screwed up, and complain that "this isn't what I wanted! " Meth use promises some utility to the user at the expense of something else--that's opportunity cost, Econ 101. In using meth, I know the risks, and I essentially agree to accept them (which it is no one's right to do but my own) by using. By Con's argument, we would have to ban basically everything, since all actions necessarily involve an opportunity cost (i. e. a limit on one's future options, which Con construes as "losing self-control". Plus, since the high from smoking marijuana (which Con admitted that he's okay with) can be construed as compromising judgment, and therefore compromsing agency. It seems that Con runs into a contradiction with this sort of advocacy. Since Pro has framed his arguments in terms of an employment contract, then I will use my last round to build on that perspective. It is commonly agreed that some contracts are morally permissible in our society, and other contracts are impermissable enough to be against th law (i. e. slavery contracts). I will write an analogous contract that corresponds to the implicit "agreement" of someone who is entering into addiction to methamphetamine. The source for the effects of meth addiction and withdrawal is . http://alcoholism.about.com...______________START OF CONTRACT______________I, the undersigned, hereby implicitly agree to be addicted to the consumption of N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine (meth). I agree to pay any pharmacist as much money as is needed to satisfy this addiction for as long as the addiction lasts. I consent to the strong-potential occurence of all of the most serious effects of meth addiction, including loss of brain mass, violent behavior, auditory hallucinations, paranoia, anorexia, extreme tooth decay, and cardiac death. If, at any time, I decide to cease this addiction to meth, I agree to accept the strong-potential physiological conditions of irritability, depression, fearfulness, tremors, nausea, palpitations, hyperventilation, and extreme craving for meth, all such effects persisting for as long as several weeks if no meth is consumed. Further, I consent to these terms regardless of my age or economic status. For example, being as young as thirteen years old is no excuse for not abiding by these terms. Further, I agree that it is impossible to breach this contract. No explicit signature is required. All it takes to "sign" this implicit contract is to consume meth in a few consecutive instances so that the onset of addiction occurs. Though the contract is implicit, realizing the terms of this contract is not required for a binding agreement to the terms. _______________END OF CONTRACT_______________I assert that such a contract is highly offensive and dangerous to our society, and I assert that state action should be taken to discourage the prevalence of anything closely analogous to it, in much the same way that slavery contracts are prohibited and strongly penalized by law. If Pro disagrees with the accuracy of this implicit contract, then I would like to know how he would rewrite it. If Pro agrees that the contract is accurate, then I would like to know if Con believes that such a contract should be legal in our society. If so, then I ask "Why? " If not, then he has relinquished the resolution. I will not use Round 4 for anything except a closing acknowledgement, per the agreement in the comments section.