Opinions - Views wanted on the positives of drug legalization

[razorwiredildo]

Okay, for my final exam in my administration of justice class, we have to write a paper on the topic "should drugs be legalized"
I want to write on the side of why they should be legalized. (I guess that is pretty obvious) I have a few reasons such as the personal freedom issue, many illegal drugs are safer than many otc drugs, the gov't could make more money while taking away money from criminal organzations, dosage would be regulated, thus making their use safer, and many illegal drugs do have medical use, they just aren't oficially recognized.

I just wanted to hear reasons for legalization from other people that have been around and know what they are talking about. If anyone could offer arguments to go against why they should remain illegal, that would be very helpful too.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting thread, hope you get some good feedback

[Coconut]

My main arguments for drug legalisation are as follows:

- Personal liberty. I do not believe it should be anyone's business what I put into my body, especially not a government's.

- Street drugs are unsafe as they are cut with toxic substances. If produced by legitimate entites, they can be made in sterile conditions with unprecedented purity.

- Street drugs empower scumbags. Drug dealers are, by and large, individuals with no respect for anyone else and certainly no concept of fairness or honour. By keeping drugs illegal we are ensuring that these dealers have a monopoly over popular recreational drugs and, therefore, thrive on the suffering and addictions of others.

- The "war on drugs" has directly taken many lives: those who have been murdered in cold blood by members of the DEA, etc.

- The bombing and spraying of coca and poppy fields in other countries (no right to meddle with them) deprives poor farmers of their livelihoods.

- Hypocrisy. The United States is the world's leading proponent of the "war on drugs", yet its pharmaceutical companies churn out millions upon millions of intoxicating and dangerous pills every year. And don't get me started on the CIA's ties to drug smuggling.

- The cannabis plant has many, many uses other than being a great high: hemp can be made into rope, paper, clothing, etc.

Very basic and maybe badly articulated. It's been a long day. Hopefully you'll be able to derive something helpful from those points though. There are probably some far better arguments out there that I can't think of right now.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Thank you for posting your thoughts.
	good points

[FuBai]

The way that drugs are circulated and the manner in which prohibition works means that rather than protecting the vulnerable in society, it actually puts them at greater risk than others, because they have both higher vulnerability and higher access. Often those who move into dealing are those with the least to lose or whom do not see a good future for themselves, and the majority of these come from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. We also know that poverty, debt and stress are major causes of drug use and abuse. So we have a situation in which those communities which are poorer and more debt ridden are those communities in which drugs are the most available because they also produce the most dealers. The harder you clamp down on dealing in these areas the more that the community comes together to hide them from what is often seen as external oppression, and the more dangerous and violent the game becomes, which leads to crime which perpetuates poverty and hopelessness.

Even without this economic cycle you still have a situation in which the most vulnerable such as the mentally ill etcetera are still able to find drugs because they are prepared to go out of their way and look for them - the idea that someone gets hooked because they were offered a line at a party is usually rubbish, most people who want drugs will actively look for them or have already decided that they would try something if offered. We know that school grades are a predicator of drug use - if you have low grades when you are 11 you are more likley to take drugs when you are 18. This is because you create a situation in which you feel marginalised and a failure, or you realise that you do not fit in with one social culture so you switch to fit in with a different one. We also know that lab rats kept in closed cages are far, far more likley to becomes addicted to a drug offered to them than if they are kept in an open environment with other rats, and that environment predicates drug use far more than drug use predicates environment. So, keeping this in mind, we can see how not only the War on Drugs perpetuates drug use by vulnerable people (and there for problem drug use), but that our focus in dealing with drug related issues should be on the environment the user is in, rather than the drug itself.

[Petethemeat]

I would be careful about writing derogitory things about the government-as your audience or reading base may only see you as a radical with no sense of reality.

-The illicit drugs market is worth $500bn annually, placing it as the second largest market in the world. It is also by far the most profitable.

-The US alone has spent hundreds of billions fighting this war, to very little effect. Should the drug war end and the production be legally regulated billions of dollars of legitimate revenue would come in. This could be used to fund the health service, education, or simply lower taxation levels.

-Prohibition has been tried before pursuing the same logic now. It is regarded by nearly everybody as a complete and abject failure. Illicit drugs are still organised crimes number one source of revenue by a long way.

-Supply side intervention is doomed to failure, as it does not recognise it's own economic laws of supply and demand. If you do intercept and destroy drugs or break up gangs, supply decreases while the demand stays the same. This simply makes it more profitable to be a drug lord, while raising the amount of crime required to get a fix by junkies. Once profit levels are seen as high, another criminal enterprise moves back into the market as surely as a wave returns to the sand.

Demand side intervention has been shown to be rather futile. Demand for drugs ebbs and flows with culture, fashion etc. Levels of enforcement have very little to do with usage. For example since Cannabis was made class C in the UK (lowest levels of enforcement) usage has actually decreased. I am not arguing this is due to the relaxation of laws, simply the futility of enforcement.

I could go on and on but I want some food...

[Perception Addict]

See if you can cite MAPS somewhere in the paper, if you aren't familiar with MAPS, google them. They are strong advocates for the legalization of, in particular, psychedelics, and are the organization that tries to run tests on these substances to prove it.

Recently the University of Delaware began testing psilocybin mushrooms for medical uses too, so that would be another credible source to use. When in doubt, back up your opinions with those of people who are highly respected. While I'm not sure what the public opinion of MAPS is, UD is a pretty credible school.