Why Is Legalizing Drugs Good

To the extent that prohibition reduces drug use, the effect is likely to be less for hard drugs than for marijuana. This is because the demand for cocaine and heroin appears to be cheaper. From this point of view, the legalization of cocaine or heroin is even stronger than marijuana; For hard drugs, prohibition mainly increases the price, which increases the resources spent on the black market while having minimal impact on consumption. One of the main arguments in favor of legalizing drugs is that other harmful drugs are already legal: especially alcohol and tobacco, but sugar and coffee are also sometimes mentioned. Can two people`s experiences and perspectives in their lives be so different that meaningful communication between them is impossible? Recent events indicate this. Nevertheless, philosopher Donald Davidson gives us good reasons why this distance should not hinder constructive discussion and gives us the tools to argue well. The idea of legalizing all illicit drugs represents a radical change from the status quo, and while no country has yet taken this drastic step, a new paper in the journal Drug Science, Policy and Law suggests that it may be the only way to address some drug-related harms. According to the authors, legalization would regulate all aspects of drug use, thereby addressing safety concerns, expanding access to drug treatment, and eliminating the violence associated with black market trafficking. Many arguments seem to make legalization a convincing alternative to today`s prohibitionist policies. In addition to undermining black market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could eliminate or at least significantly reduce the very problems that most concern the public: the crime, corruption and violence that accompany the functioning of illicit drug markets.

It would also likely reduce the damage caused by the lack of quality controls for illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle parts and other unsanitary practices. In addition, governments could abandon costly and largely futile efforts to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and imprison offenders by spending the money saved to educate people not to use drugs and to treat those who become addicted. The most obvious case is the regulation of adolescents` and young adults` access to drugs. Whatever the regime, it is hard to imagine that the drugs that are now banned would be more readily available than alcohol and tobacco today. Would there be a black market for drugs for youth, or would the regulatory system be as permeable as the current one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to both questions would reduce the appeal of legalization. Easing the availability of psychoactive substances that are not already commercially available, opponents generally argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial increase in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin and cocaine addiction in various countries prior to the entry into force of international controls, the increase in alcohol consumption following the repeal of the Volstead Act in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among health professionals with better access to prescription drugs. Without explaining the basis of their calculations, some have predicted a dramatic increase in the number of people who use drugs and become addicted.

These increases would result in significant direct and indirect costs to society, including increased public health spending as a result of overdoses, foetal malformations and other drug-related accidents such as car accidents; loss of productivity due to absenteeism and accidents at work; and more drug-induced violence, child abuse and other crimes, not to mention school unrest. The argument, based on the analogy between alcohol and tobacco and psychoactive drugs, is weak because its conclusion that psychoactive drugs should be legalized does not follow from its premises. It is illogical to say that because alcohol and tobacco wreak havoc (for example, they are responsible for 500,000 premature deaths each year), a heavy toll of legalization is acceptable. In fact, the opposite seems more logical: banning the use of alcohol, tobacco and psychoactive drugs because of the harm they all cause. In addition, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, crack and the rest of the psychoactive drugs are not harmless substances – they have serious negative consequences for the health of users and the responsibility for addiction. The authors then raise the possibility of decriminalizing drugs, which would eliminate criminal penalties for possession, while production and sale would remain illegal.