Activities such as taking heroin come with various risks and these public health policies aim to remove some of these dangers so that individuals can use drugs in a safer manner. In fact, harm reduction has even been suggested as a more effective method of combating drug use than more traditional approaches, such as prohibition and harsh sentences.
Throughout history commonplace drugs such as alcohol, marijuana and even coffee have been banned in various places, with varying degrees of success.
In the twentieth century, while alcohol and coffee have been rehabilitated as mainstream drugs, there remain many new and old drugs which have been prohibited in their place.
Despite prohibition, drug use remains high, fuelling an underground market which supports a vast network of organised criminals and petty crooks.
In the USA, figures estimate that A high level of this illegal drug use is marijuana. However, cocaine use seems to be increasing in Europe and is highest in the USA. By way of comparison, the Netherlands, which is famous for the liberalism of its drug laws, reports only 1.
The gap between the law and the underlying use of illicit drugs is cause for a great debate, with vocal arguments from both sides. In brief, here is the crux of both arguments: The Argument for Drug Prohibition - The fundamental reason for prohibition is to protect people.
Illegal drugs are dangerous, both directly and as a result of the psychological effects that can result from their use. Perhaps more importantly, the danger of drug use is not limited to their users. Some drugs can make users more violent, erratic and unpredictable with corresponding results for non-users.
If you accept that drugs are damaging to society and individuals then prohibition creates benefits by reducing these harmful effects. Conversely, if prohibition were removed then drug use would increase with correspondingly harmful effects. Moreover, people might be more encouraged to take more dangerous drugs.
Children might become drug users at an earlier age with important health impacts. In the case of the most serious drugs the risk of addiction can be high. In the case of addition, it is arguable that drug use no longer becomes a matter of personal choice but a disease.
The Argument against Drug Prohibition - The failure of prohibition to prevent consumption of illicit drugs shows that existing policies do not work. It would be preferable to use the money saved by ending prohibition to provide more drug rehabilitation centres and more drug education.
The consequence of this is less safe drugs from adulterationviolence and stronger organised crime elements. I find some of the liberalisation arguments, which tend to be focussed on bashing alcohol, rather disingenuous.
Equally, I suspect that some of the prohibition propaganda as to the effects of drugs is purposely overblown. Possibly this is justified given some of the worst case scenarios, but it still undermines the case for prohibition. Most damning of all is the fact that prohibition seems to create crime as much if not more than it prevents crime.
I suppose, though, if drugs were to be legalised then just as likely would be the creation of powerful interest lobbies. Mainly I think that what public debate there is on the subject is flawed, because talking about all drugs in the same breath is misleading as they are very different in their effects.
I suspect that in America no politician could realistically argue for drug liberalisation, except in the most liberal of areas. Are you in favour of continued prohibition for illegal drugs? Yes - for all drugs Yes for the most serious drugs, but some should be legalised No, all drugs should be legalised Not sure If you answered yes to the above question, why do you think this?
Drugs are inherently dangerous It's a slippery slope, legalisation would make drug use far more prevalent Some combination or all of the above Some other reason If you answered no to the above question, why do you think this?
People should be free to use drugs if they wish Prohibition doesn't work and causes more problems than it solves I like illegal drugs! Some combination or all of the above Some other reason.The election is now over and history has been made by Washington and Colorado, the first states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.
And prior to that, our state was already one of 16 to have legalized medical marijuana. Continued. This page is an overview of State Question Ballotpedia has compiled details about the proposal, the text of the measure, supporters and opponents, arguments for and against, campaign finance information, background on the status of medical marijuana, and how the measure got on the ballot.
Regardless of which is safer (which, due to the often subjective effects of any drug, is an essentially unwinnable argument), society is better off having either alcohol or .
The tricky one would be comparing the costs of the drug war. Compare alcohol, which is a hard drug and hugely harmful, but so stupidly easy to make that banning it is handing buckets of free money to organised crime, blindness and brain damage from methanol in badly-distilled spirits, etc..
I do concur that busting people’s asses for driving while stoned is a very important social bright. California Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, was on the November 8, , ballot in California as an initiated state plombier-nemours.comters referred to the initiative as the Adult Use of Marijuana plombier-nemours.com was approved.
Sep 07, · The campaign against marijuana legalization in Arizona received a major infusion of cash last week from a synthetic cannabis drugmaker that .