Escalation means not staying at a certain level of drug use; Instead, the consumer of a drug tends to increase the amount taken over time. CONS: It is likely that the sale and use of drugs, as well as public health and safety in the population, will increase significantly as more people use them. It should be noted that just because there are laws in place to limit the potential harm to public health and safety resulting from increased use does not necessarily mean that these laws will necessarily be adequately enforced once a drug is legalized. On the one hand, about 45% of cannabis users later use other illicit drugs. This seems to support the gateway drug theory [3]. There is another harsh reality: in some cases, the only thing that forces someone who is addicted to drugs and out of control to go to therapy is the threat (or reality) of incarceration. Eliminate laws that prohibit the sale of these drugs, and you eliminate the only hope of help for so many people who are addicted but simply cannot quit. For example, in 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drug use, but did not legalize it. Citizens who buy, possess or use illegal drugs for up to ten days are referred to drug treatment programs rather than prisons and prisons. “In a legalization scenario, there would still be a black market for drugs. If drugs were legal for people over the age of 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age.
People under the age of 21 use the majority of illicit drugs, so an illicit market and organized crime would remain to deliver them – as well as the organized crime that profits from them. Did organized crime disappear in this country after prohibition ended? No. It continues today in various other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not drive cartels into bankruptcy; The cartels would simply seek other illegal efforts. “We have made significant progress in combating drug use and trafficking in America. Now is not the time to give up. The legalization lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, total drug use has decreased by more than a third over the past twenty years, while cocaine use has fallen by 70%. There are a number of pros and cons to legalizing drugs, and there is no simple answer. To further muddy the waters, for some, there is a moral or ideological argument, while others prefer to use evidence and statistics. Drug legislation in the UK can also be a highly politicised issue, and the debate will undoubtedly continue as people on both sides highlight the pros and cons of legalising drugs in the UK.
The war on drugs adds to this stigma by implying that addiction is a moral failure rather than a medical condition. “The best evidence of the failure of prohibition is the government`s current war on drugs. Instead of implementing a strategy of prevention, research, education and social programs aimed at solving problems such as persistent poverty, long-term unemployment and the deteriorating living conditions in our inner cities, this war has used a law enforcement strategy. As this military approach continues to devour billions of taxpayers` money and land tens of thousands of people in prison, illicit drug trafficking thrives, violence escalates, and drug abuse continues to weaken lives. Many people have criticized these penalties and advocated for the decriminalization of drugs, which could have both advantages and disadvantages. “Nowhere is there reliable and objective scientific evidence that [illicit drugs] are more harmful than other legal substances and activities. Given the enormous cost, carnage and obvious futility of the “war on drugs” leading to a massive criminalization of society, it is high time to examine the alleged justification for the illegality of certain substances. Those who initiated these bans and those who are now trying so vigorously to enforce them have not clearly defined their objectives. Should they protect us from evil, addiction or poison? Should we legalize recreational drug use? The main arguments in favour of legalizing recreational drugs are: 1.
The legalization or decriminalization of recreational drugs will bring additional tax revenue. 2. Drug prohibition breeds crime and encourages criminals. 3. The legalization of drugs would allow the state to control the quality of and access to drugs. 4. Other legal drugs are more harmful (alcohol, tobacco). 5. In a free society, people should be free to choose whether they want to use drugs. 6. Drugs have always been used in human societies. If the government heavily imposed a legalized drug market, drug gangs could still operate.
This could include manufacturing or smuggling fabrics and selling them to consumers at lower prices or selling stronger versions. The truth is also this: drug abuse is different from drug use, just as alcoholism is different from the weekend cocktail. Instead of waging the war of abuse from a moral and shameful attitude that does not work at any age, we could try a medical model that illuminates with facts and demands human wisdom. Think of it as an investment in credibility so that potential users are prepared for the discussion about the consequences that must follow. “Some people argue that decriminalization could lead to legalization. Legalizing dangerous drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin would likely increase rates of addiction and other serious diseases. Those on the other side of the drug legalization debate argue that widespread acceptance of marijuana will lead to an increase in use and, therefore, an increase in marijuana addiction, particularly because marijuana`s potency has steadily increased over the past 30 years. They also believe that marijuana is a gateway drug and, therefore, an increase in marijuana use would lead to an increase in the use of harder drugs. Opponents also worry about the potential increase in hospitalizations related to drug legalization and predict an increase in driving disruptions and fatal car crashes as a result of the legalization of recreational marijuana. As with most issues in the drug legalization debate, there is research that supports and rejects the latter thesis.
One of the broader lessons that [recent presidents and Congresses] should have learned is this: prohibition laws should be judged by their actual effects, not the promised benefits. Congress should repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, shut down the Drug Enforcement Administration, and let states set their own policies regarding currently illegal drugs. Repealing prohibition would deprive the drug trade of astronomical profits and destroy the drug lords who terrorize parts of our cities. Not only would there be less crime; The reform would also allow federal agents to focus on terrorism and espionage, and local police officers to focus on theft, burglary and violent crime. More recently, several European countries have experimented with various attempts to legalize or decriminalize certain illicit drugs. These experiences have led to an increase in the number of drug addicted patients and a corresponding increase in the crime rate. Another argument against legalizing recreational drugs is the danger associated with their use. Some immediate dangers, depending on the medication, may include loss of inhibition, aggressive and dangerous behavior, fatigue, disorientation and loss of consciousness, bodily injury, and psychological problems such as anxiety or, in severe cases, psychotic episodes [5]. For more information on the legalization versus decriminalization debate of drugs and different types of drugs, see the first part of this article. Of course, one can discuss the extent to which these effects are due to the drug itself, and to what extent it is the direct result of the illegality of these drugs. CONS: It is likely that the sale and use of drugs, as well as public health and safety in the population, will increase significantly as more people use them. For example, potential tax revenues from sales may be offset by economic losses associated with lower labour productivity (e.g., more people take non-working days to recover from the effects of consumption) and be offset by health care costs.
It should also be noted that while the economic costs of law enforcement and criminal justice are legal, they may also contribute to the economic burden of violations of laws accompanying legalization (e.g., drug use convictions; Sale to minors). “We” must “invest” in “our” future by supporting people who voluntarily choose to inject drugs into their own bodies and then become unable to find work, find housing and care for their children. It is therefore not entirely correct to say that drugs do not harm anyone except the user, at least until we abolish the welfare state. The observation behind this idea is that few addicts would truly choose to be addicted if they weren`t already. You can see this in smokers who are constantly trying to smoke less or quit smoking, addicted drinkers who attend A.A. meetings, etc. Clearly, there is a strong tendency for addicts to try to escape their addiction. The fact that many fail does not show that they want to be dependent, but that they have no choice.
Drug prohibition and the application of drug policies can help these users finally rid themselves of their addiction.
Comments are closed.