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. Although the alternative to legalization usually emerges when public fear of drugs and despair of existing policies are at their highest, it never seems to disappear long from the radar screen of the media. Periodic incidents — such as the heroin-induced death of a wealthy young Couple in New York in 1995 or then-surgeon general Jocelyn Elders` remark in 1993 that legalization could be beneficial and should be investigated — guarantee this. The importance of many of those who have advocated for legalization at various times — such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, and George Shultz — also helps. But every time the question of legalization arises, the same arguments for and against are dusted off and produced, so we don`t have a clearer understanding of what it might mean and what the implications might be.
Caught in the crossfire. Just as alcohol prohibition fueled violent gangsterism in the 1920s, today`s drug prohibition has spawned a culture of shootings and other gun-related crimes. And just as most of the violence of the 1920s wasn`t committed by people who were drunk, most of the drug-related violence today is not committed by people who are drug-rich. The murders, then and now, are based on rivalries: Al Capone ordered the execution of rival smugglers, and drug traffickers are now killing their rivals. A 1989 government study of the 193 “cocaine-related” homicides in New York Found that 87 percent of them stemmed from rivalries and disagreements related to doing business in an illegal market. In only one case, the perpetrator was in fact under the influence of cocaine. What becomes immediately apparent, even with an occasional review of these issues — and the list presented here is by no means exhaustive — is that there is a wide range of regulatory permutations for each drug. However, until all key alternatives are clear and detailed, the potential costs and benefits of each alternative cannot be responsibly assessed. This fundamental point can be illustrated in relation to the two central issues most likely to influence public opinion. What would happen to drug use under more permissive regulatory regimes? And what would happen to the crime? The universality of drug use throughout human history has led some experts to conclude that the desire to change consciousness, for whatever reason, is a fundamental human motivation. People in almost every culture, at every time, have used psychoactive drugs.
The natives of South America take coca breaks, just as we do coffee breaks in this country. Native Americans used peyote and tobacco in their religious ceremonies, just as Europeans used wine. Alcohol is the drug of choice in Europe, the United States and Canada, while many Muslim countries tolerate the use of opium and marijuana. A new study suggests that marijuana legalization is leading to an increase in cannabis use and possibly addiction, especially among adults 26 and older — pointing to a public health disadvantage compared to a policy change that 11 states and Washington, D.C., have now adopted and are considering several more. According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), the study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, looked at how marijuana legalization has changed, whether people had used marijuana in the past month, whether they had used it frequently (20 days or more the previous month), and whether they had met the NSDUH criteria for cannabis use disorders. which ranges from problematic use to addiction in the past year. The researchers focused on the first four states to be legalized — Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska — and divided the results between teens (ages 12 to 17), young adults (ages 18 to 25), and older adults (ages 26 and older). At the turn of the century, many drugs were made illegal when an atmosphere of moderation gripped the nation. In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which banned opiates and cocaine. Alcohol prohibition soon followed, and by 1918 the United States was officially a “dry” nation. However, this did not mean the end of drug use.
This meant that suddenly people were being arrested and imprisoned for doing what they had done before without government interference. Prohibition also meant the emergence of a criminal-led and violent black market. Specifically, until the nature of the alleged regulatory system is clarified, such discussions are unnecessary. It would be surprising, for example, if the consumption of legalized drugs did not increase, if they became commercially available, as is the case today for alcohol and tobacco products, with sophisticated packaging, marketing and advertising. But more restrictive diets could have very different results. In any event, the risk of increased drug use could be acceptable if legalization could significantly, if not completely, eliminate the crime associated with the black market in illicit drugs, while making some forms of drug use safer. Here too, there are controversial claims. 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. On the 12th. In September 2018, a new Colorado report compiled by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area found that the number of marijuana-related deaths on the roads has increased since marijuana was legalized. Driving under the influence of drugs has gone from about one person every 6.5 days to killing someone every 2.5 days.12 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 programmes aimed at solving problems such as persistent poverty, long-term unemployment and deteriorating living conditions in our city centres, this war has pursued a law enforcement strategy. As this military approach continues to devour billions of taxpayers` money and send tens of thousands of people to prison, the illicit drug trade thrives, violence intensifies, and drug abuse continues to weaken lives. Added to this is the largely uncontrolled spread of the AIDS virus among drug addicts, their sexual partners and offspring. None of this should deter further analysis of drug legalization.
