All drugs should be legalized and regulated

My opponent has not brought much new to the table here. A few more hardly relevant analogies, and more of the same assertions that legalizing and regulating the production, distribution, and use of all drugs will inevitably lead to a significant increase in users, addicts, and societal problems associated with drug use and abuse (assertions that are not backed up by a single source, case study, or real-world scenario). The analogy to the war on terror is even less relevant than the previous WWII analogy. While I disagree with many of the tactics used in the war on terrorism, combating terrorism is indeed a worthwhile endeavor for the simple fact that terrorists and terrorism, by their very definitions, cause harm to others. There is no way to legitimize the terrorism "industry" that will reduce the harm done by terrorist organizations. As I have already stated, legalization and regulation of the drug industry would immediately take control of the industry out of the hands of criminal organizations. My opponent has agreed that this is the case. This would obviously decrease the harm that these organizations and individuals can cause to others. I find the weed analogy to be not only irrelevant to the case at hand, but is also either extremely insensitive or extremely naive. Comparing the millions of lives ruined every year by the war on drugs to the eradication of weeds in his field? Really??? The battle against racial inequality is probably the most relevant analogy brought forth. However, the way that we combat racism is more akin to my proposal of legalization and regulation than it is to the current war on drugs. It is not illegal to be a racist. It is, however, illegal to use one's racism to cause harm to others. It should not be illegal for adults to use drugs. Obviously though, it should be illegal to engage in actions which potentially or actually harm others, either because of the effects of the drugs themselves (driving while intoxicated, physical assault, etc) or through actions taken to support drug use (burglaries, robberies, etc). The most effective weapon in the "war on racism" is education and public awareness. As I have previously stated, legalization of drugs needs to be coupled with factual education on the actual dangers of drug use. My opponent correctly states that tobacco and alcohol are the most widely used recreational drugs. He states that this is the case "despite all of the known health risks and education programmes." How has widespread education of the health risks affected the prevalence of the use of these drugs though? The current push to educate the public on the dangers of tobacco and alcohol did not really get started until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Prior to that, these products were heavily advertised (sometimes even endorsed by doctors), their use was prevalent in movies and TV (even in children's programming), and, especially regarding tobacco there were fewer restrictions on where they could be used. It wasn't all that long ago that one could smoke on airplanes, something that seems utterly ludicrous to most of us now. By every measure, and across all demographics, tobacco and alcohol use has dramatically and steadily decreased since the early 1980s. The most dramatic decrease in use of these drugs, especially in the last 15-20 years can be seen in high school age youth. A long-term study in the US found the following results among high school seniors (try as I might, I could not figure out how to import the graphs from this source, but I encourage everyone to follow the link provided): -1979 past month alcohol use---boys 7.5%, girls 6% -2010 past month alcohol use---boys 4.5%, girls 5% -1979 past month tobacco use---boys 3.8%, girls 3.9% -2010 past month tobacco use---boys 2.4%, girls 1.2% -1979 past month heavy alcohol use---boys 2%, girls 1% -2010 past month heavy alcohol use---boys 0.58%, girls 0.4% -1979 past month heavy tobacco use---boys 1.1%, girls 0.9% -2010 past month heavy tobacco use---boys 0.25%, girls 0.2% [1] [1] SOURCE---(http://www.demographic-research.org...) My opponent's assertion that legal sanctions against even casual drug users are necessary to deter drug use has not been demonstrated. In fact, even the harshest of sanctions, the death penalty, has not deterred drug traffickers or users in some countries. Furthermore, some people, especially impressionable and defiant youths are actually tempted to use drugs BECAUSE of their illicit nature. I am a Licensed Practical Nurse with experience in addictions and recovery. I have heard this directly from addicts. The deterrent vs enticement of keeping drugs illegal is probably a push. On the other hand, education on the risks of drug use coupled with strict regulations on use HAS been successful in decreasing drug use. This is evidenced by the increase in education and regulations and subsequent decrease in alcohol and tobacco use in the last 35 years. It has also been demonstrated, in Portugal and elsewhere, that removing the threat of legal sanctions against addicts leads to more addicts seeking treatment (double, in the case of Portugal), without the corresponding increase in long term casual users OR addicts. As previously mentioned, Portugal's current rate of increase of casual users is on par with the rest of the EU. Couple that with the fact that 8,000 fewer people are facing drug charges every year, and that is, by any measure an increase in overall benefit to Portuguese society. The same rate of increase among adults, a decrease in the number of young users, twice as many addicts receiving treatment, greatly reduced court costs, and 8,000 people per year not receiving criminal charges. How could that be seen as anything but a resounding success? And all that while still leaving organized crime in charge of production and distribution. As I have already stated, and as America's failed attempt at alcohol prohibition has demonstrated, the government, even at current levels of incompetence and corruption, is a far better choice for regulating the drug industry than the mafia, cartels, and street gangs. A return to alcohol prohibition, something my opponent would like to see happen, would once again completely deregulate the alcohol industry. The same people who control the illicit trade of hard drugs today would be in control of the industry and would play by the same rules. Did we, as a society learn nothing the first time around? As harmful as many drugs are, and alcohol is one of the worst, they will always be with us and someone will always set the rules of conduct for the drug industry. The question is, who is better suited to setting and enforcing those rules; the government or organized crime? I think it is clear where we both stand on that issue. Some might view a doubling of addicts in treatment in Portugal as an alarming indictment of legalization/decriminalization (it shouldn't be alarming since, as i mentioned, there was not a corresponding increase in reported use or addiction). For that reason, let us look at treatment vs incarceration. Treatment is not only more effective at combating addiction than is incarceration, it is also much more cost effective and allows for resources to be utilized elsewhere. It has even been shown that in-patient treatment for addicted offenders is more effective at reducing recidivism and re-offend rates than treatment programs coupled with jail time, and immeasurably more effective than jail time alone. In New York State, a study found that the cost of out of prison treatment runs around $2,000-$7,000. Incarceration for 25 months (the average sentence for drug offenders) is $64,000. Even the intensive 15-24 month Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program costs $33,000, around half the cost of prison. Treatment inside prison adds $24/day to the cost of incarceration and is less effective. Recidivism rates for those receiving in-patient treatment dropped 16.7%. For those receiving treatment in prison, the decrease in recidivism was only 4.5-5.7%. A federal report in the US showed that "after completing a treatment program, the percentage of offenders arrested for drug charges went down by 51%, overall arrests declined by 64%, and 70-90% saw reductions in criminal behavior." [2] Treatment also saves lives, while incarceration destroys them. [2] SOURCE---(https://beyondorange.wordpress.com...) One question that has only briefly been touched upon in this debate is: Do adult human beings require the government to be their nanny? Phrased another way, should properly informed adults be free to make their own choices so long as their choices do not harm others? I would love to explore the personal freedom/responsibility aspect of the argument in greater detail, but alas I am quickly approaching my character limit, so I must keep it short. My opponent clearly believes that adults do in fact require a nanny to protect them not only from each other, but from themselves. What he fails to realize is that by "protecting" its citizens from themselves, the government is essentially throwing them to the wolves. If the government does not oversee and regulate the production, distribution, and use of potentially harmful drugs, someone else will; and that someone is inevitably an even more corrupt organization which operates without rules and regard for human lives (or term limits). My opponent would prefer drugs to remain illegal "for the people." And while I do not doubt his good intentions, what he doesn't see is that the war against drugs that he supports is really a war "against the people." I'd like to thank beng100 for engaging me in this interesting, entertaining, and civil discussion. May the best argument win.