The legalization of drugs will not stop violence and social problems. Just look at Amsterdam or the Czech Republic, where more liberal approaches have led to an increase in drug tourism and public unrest. In the Netherlands, some cities have tightened restrictions on cannabis for this reason. In addition, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration states that “crime, violence, and drug use go hand in hand.” They argue that “six times more homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs than by those who seek money to buy drugs.” The arguments in favor of legalizing the use of all narcotics and stimulants are twofold: philosophical and pragmatic. Neither argument is negligible, but both are false, I believe, and both miss the point. After the federal alcohol ban was lifted, each state developed its own system of regulating the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. The same could happen with currently illegal drugs. For example, states could create different regulations for marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. Proponents of legalization acknowledge that consumption is likely to increase, but counter that it is not clear that the increase would be very large or would last for a very long time, especially if legalization were coupled with appropriate public education programs. They also cite historical evidence to support their claims, noting that opium, heroin and cocaine use had already begun to decline before prohibition came into effect, that alcohol use did not suddenly increase after prohibition was repealed, and that the decriminalization of cannabis use in 11 U.S.
states did not trigger a dramatic increase in use in the 1970s. Some also point to the legal sale of cannabis products through regulated outlets in the Netherlands, which also does not appear to have significantly increased consumption by Dutch nationals. Public opinion polls, which show that most Americans would not rush to try previously banned drugs that suddenly became available, are also being used to support the pro-legalization case. Would drugs be more available if the ban were lifted? It`s hard to imagine that drugs are more available than they are today. Despite efforts to stem their flow, medicines are accessible to anyone who wants them. In a recent government-sponsored survey of high school graduates, 55 percent said it would be “easy” for them to get cocaine, and 85 percent said it would be “easy” for them to get marijuana. In our city centres, access to drugs is particularly easy and the risk of arrest has proven to be negligible as a deterrent. What would change with decriminalization is not so much the availability of drugs as the conditions under which drugs would be available. Without a ban, it would be easier to provide assistance to addicts who would like to abandon their habits, as the money now wasted on law enforcement could be used for preventive social programs and treatment. Illegal drugs are often cut with toxic substances or other drugs, and the purity and strength of each batch produced can vary enormously.
Indeed, drugs are bought and sold on the black market, far from the rules and enforcement mechanisms of legal products. If drugs were legalized, they could be standardized and regulated. Ending prohibition is not a panacea. It alone will not end drug abuse or eliminate violence. Nor will it lead to a social and economic revival of our city centres. However, ending prohibition would bring a very important benefit: it would break the link between drugs and crime that destroys so many lives and communities today. In the long term, lifting the ban could promote the diversion of public resources to social development, legitimate economic opportunities and effective treatment, thereby improving the safety, health and well-being of society as a whole. Why do drug addicts who receive their drugs for free continue to commit crimes? Some addicts, of course, continue to take drugs other than those prescribed and have to fund their use. As long as any restrictions, regardless of the regulation of drug use, many addicts will seek them out illegally, regardless of what they receive legally.
In addition, drugs themselves exert a long-term effect on a person`s ability to earn a living and significantly limit their horizons and mental repertoire, rather than expand it. They weaken an addict`s willingness or ability to make long-term plans. Although drugs are at the center of an addict`s life, they are not all they need to live, and so many addicts continue to procure the rest of what they need through criminal means. A “drug-free America” is not a realistic goal, and by criminally banning psychoactive drugs, the government has ceded all control over potentially dangerous substances to criminals. Instead of trying to eradicate all drug use, our government should focus on reducing drug abuse and the crime caused by prohibition. This requires a fundamental change in public order: the lifting of the ban on sanctions and the creation of a reasonable regulatory system. Licensed premises: Vendors are allowed to sell locally consumed drugs, as are alcohol bars and cannabis “cafes” in the Netherlands. A natural and understandable concern that people have is that decriminalization will increase drug use, leading to crime, drug addiction and death. This fear does not seem to be confirmed by the facts. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001.
A 2010 academic study found a reduction in problematic use (defined as injection drug use or regular use of opioids, cocaine and/or amphetamines) and drug-related harms such as deaths and new HIV infections – further evidence that few users are deterred by criminal sanctions. Productivity: The use of certain medications impairs clarity of mind or makes the user lethargic, tired, demotivated, and reluctant or unable to participate in normal daily activities, especially those that require long-term attention and mental focus. This reduction in human productivity can be described as morally wrong. Human society is based on the principle that everyone must contribute according to their abilities and that each person must keep his share of the agreement so that everyone can flourish. It can be said that drug addicts benefit from society and its infrastructure without contributing as much as possible if they do not take drugs. It can be said that this is morally reprehensible, just as withholding tax is morally wrong. If drugs were legal, it would be easier to identify and treat people who are addicted. Substance abuse should be treated as a medical problem and not as a criminal justice issue.
Addicts are driven underground when the purchase and possession of drugs is illegal. The legalization of drugs could be accompanied by more effective ways to rehabilitate and support drug addicts. That Bill Clinton “inhaled” when he tried marijuana as a student was about what the last presidential campaign came closest to the drug problem. However, the current one could be very different. For the fourth year in a row, a state-sponsored survey by the University of Michigan found an increase in drug use among U.S. high school students. After a decade or more of declining drug use, Republicans will surely blame President Clinton for the bad news and attack him for not pursuing the high-profile stance of the Bush and Reagan administrations on drugs.
