All drugs should be legalized and regulated

At the risk of this debate evolving into a discussion on mid-twentieth century history and battle tactics, I will respond briefly to my opponent's assertion that Britain's position in WWII is analogous to the war on drugs. The analogy just doesn't work. There were plausible scenarios in which Britain could defeat Germany. Not only plausible scenarios, but since Britain and its allies eventually did defeat Germany, there were likely scenarios. My opponent mentioned a few himself. Britain's victory was aided by powerful allies entering the war, and Germany spread itself thin by advancing on multiple fronts. Not only that, Germany was losing the support of its allies, and was succumbing to internal opposition to, and sabotage of, their war efforts as well. One major difference between the war on drugs and WWII (or any other traditional military campaign for that matter) is that there is no plausible scenario in which any side in the continued war on drugs can claim victory. There is no end game. Drugs, drug users, and drug addicts can NEVER be eliminated from society. My opponent is in agreement on this point. Despite the efforts of nearly every country on Earth to incarcerate or execute everyone from large-scale producers to recreational users, the drug trade remains one of the largest industries in the world. An industry free from any reasonable regulations, in which the rules of conduct are dictated by some of the most immoral people. An end to the war on drugs, with all substances being legalized and regulated, would not be a surrender to the forces of evil. In fact, the continuation of the war on drugs provides the conditions for evil to prevail. I would also argue that the term "war on drugs" is a misnomer. This is not a clear war with a recognized enemy which can, at least in theory be defeated. There are no winners in the "war on drugs," only losers. While I don't find the term particularly accurate, it is at least understood, and for ease of argument I do not object to its continued use as a description of the nearly universal strategy of criminalizing the production, distribution, and use of drugs. My opponent has stated that low-level traffickers often take the fall for large-scale producers and distributors. He also makes the case that lack of governmental control is largely responsible for the ability of cartels to maintain control of the production of drugs. It seems as though my opponent is making the case for government regulations for me. I have already explained how regulations on the production and distribution of drugs would effectively and immediately take control of the drug industry away from the cartels and gangs. This is something that even the harshest of legal sanctions can never do. During alcohol prohibition in the US, the criminal underworld controlled the trade of alcohol. Bloody turf wars between rival producers and distributors, with innocents caught in the crossfire, were not uncommon. Otherwise law abiding people who saw moonshining or bootlegging as a viable means to make ends meet had their lives ruined not by the drug that they were producing, but by the "war" on alcohol. Today, it is not altogether uncommon to find 10 and 12 year olds selling marijuana, cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines on the street. Why is is that these same young people are not selling alcohol (except perhaps to other underage people who cannot legally purchase it)? The simple reason is that the distribution of alcohol is now controlled and regulated by the government. Any adult who wishes can purchase and use this potent and potentially dangerous drug legally. The same goes for tobacco products. And speaking of alcohol and tobacco, they are demonstrably two of the most dangerous drugs on the market. They are both far more harmful to their users than some of the drugs that are currently prohibited in much the world. Any argument that states that potentially dangerous drugs should be prohibited due to their inherent risks must, by definition, include the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco. According to my opponent, I have suggested that "products such as Heroin, Crystal Meth and Cocaine can be picked up off supermarket shelves and placed in trolleys or picked up from the selection in front of the till in a newsagents." I challenge him to show where I suggested anything even remotely similar to this. In fact, I never made any suggestions as to how these products should be made available, only that their distribution should be subject to government regulations, and that properly educated legal adults should not face criminal prosecution for purchasing or consuming them. Every jurisdiction has its own way of regulating currently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. In some places, beer, wine, and spirits can be purchased in grocery stores. In other places, only beer and wine can be sold in grocery stores. In Canada, where I live, all alcohol products can only be sold in licensed facilities that primarily sell alcohol and alcohol related products; minors are not even allowed in the door (how many cocaine dealers do you think have the same policy?). Here, tobacco companies cannot advertise, and tobacco products must not be visible to the public wherever they are sold. They are kept in closed cases. I would like to see drugs sold in designated, licensed facilities, not unlike liquor stores. Perhaps even single product facilities where only a single drug, or type of drug is sold. My opponent is correct in stating that Portugal did not enact full legalization and regulation of the drug trade. The incredible improvements seen in Portugal, improvements which cannot be denied nor overstated, were made despite the fact that Portugal left the drug trade in the hands of unregulated criminal cartels and gangs. As I mentioned, Portugal still tries around 6,000 people per year on drug related charges, presumably for importing and selling. That is still a huge waste of resources when the alternative is to license and regulate producers and distributors, and perform regular inspections to insure compliance, as with any other industry. Not only is it a huge waste of resources, but the cartels and gangs are still able to recruit vulnerable individuals who are often otherwise law abiding citizens and addicts to carry out the dirty work and, as my opponent mentioned, take the fall when law enforcement comes knocking. Adults in a free society should be free to make their own choices, even poor choices, so long as their actions do not harm others. Using drugs may harm the user, but unless the user is also committing other crimes, this should not be a criminal matter. **After reading several other debates here, I realize that a rule stipulating no new arguments in the last round is useful for bringing a debate to a tidy end. If my opponent agrees, I'd like to propose such a rule. This gives us one more round to make arguments and rebuttals, and a final round to wrap up any loose ends and reiterate our main points. However, I understand if my opponent would rather not agree to this change at such a late stage in the debate.