Underlying your arguments is the belief that some people are better at making these sorts of decisions than others. The belief that any group of people (no matter how large) should dictate the consumption patterns of another group of people (no matter how small) is inherently anti-democratic.

You claim that the drug situation should be carefully analysed. Well, it must be analysed by someone, right? Who will do the analysis? Who deserves this power? Who do we trust enough to make unbiased decisions in this domain?

Another underlying assumption that you seem to be making is that drugs are bad. You want to allow room for advances in hygeine, medical treatement, etc. but you don't want people to do more drugs.

I want people to do more drugs. I want there to be more and deeper research into drugs. I want people to trip more. I want cocaine and heroin addicts to have easy access to ibogaine. I want there to be less shame associated with having gone through a period of heavy addiction. I want people to smoke weed and do mushrooms and LSD and 2CE on their days off rather than getting drunk.

"Legalize drugs" is not an over-simplification, it is a purification. It is the only position which is consistent with freedom and mutual human respect. It is the only position which has any hope of allowing humanity to move towards a healthy and mature stance on drug use. Your attempt to cast it as a "simplification" is a subtle (and all-too-common) context-switch from the land of ideals into the land of hubristic utilitarianism/pragmatism.