should drugs be legalized essay

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Should drugs be legalized? Legalization pros and cons

Source: Composite by G_marius based on Chuck Grimmett's image

Should drugs be legalized? Why? Is it time to lift the prohibition on recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine? Can we stop drug trafficking? if so what would be the best way to reduce consumption?

Public health problem

Drugs continue to be one of the greatest problems for public health . Although the consumption of some substances has declined over time, new drugs have entered the market and become popular. In the USA, after the crack epidemic, in the 80s and early 90s, and the surge of methamphetamine, in the 90s and early 21st century, there is currently a prescription opioid crisis . The number of casualties  from these opioids, largely bought in pharmacies, has overtaken the combined deaths from cocaine and heroine overdose. There are million of addicts to these substances which are usually prescribed by a doctor. This is a relevant twist to the problem of drugs because it shows that legalization or criminalization may not always bring the desire solution to the problem of drug consumption. On the other hand there is also evidence of success in reducing drug abuse through legal reform. This is the case of Portuguese decriminalization of drug use, which has show a dramatic decrease in drug related crime, overdoses and HIV infections. 

History of prohibition of drugs

There are legal recreational drugs , such as alcohol and  tobacco , and other recreational drugs which are prohibited. The history of  prohibition of drugs is long. Islamic Sharia law, which dates back to the 7th century, banned some intoxicating substances, including alcohol. Opium consumption was later prohibited in China and Thailand. The  Pharmacy Act 1868 in the United Kingdom was the first modern law in Europe regulating drug use. This law prohibited the distribution of poison and drugs, and in particular opium and derivates. Gradually other Western countries introduced laws to limit the use of opiates.  For instance in San Francisco smoking opium was banned in 1875 and in Australia opium sale was prohibited in 1905 . In the early 20th century, several countries such as Canada, Finland, Norway, the US and Russia, introduced alcohol prohibitions . These alcohol prohibitions were unsucessful and lifted later on. Drug prohibitions were strengthened around the world from the 1960s onward. The US was one of the main proponents of a strong stance against drugs, in particular since Richad Nixon declared the "War on Drugs ." The "War on Drugs" did not produced the results expected. The demand for drugs grew as well as the number of addicts. Since production and distribution was illegal, criminals took over its supply.  Handing control of the drug trade to organized criminals has had disastrous consequences across the globe. T oday, drug laws diverge widely across countries. Some countries have softer regulation and devote less resources to control drug trafficking, while in other countries the criminalization of drugs can entail very dire sentences. Thus while in some countries recreational drug use has been decriminalized, in others drug traficking is punished with life or death sentences.

Should drugs be legalized?

In many Western countries drug policies are considered ineffective and decriminalization of drugs has become a trend. Many experts have provided evidence on why drugs should be legal . One reason for legalization of recreational drug use is that the majority of adicts are not criminals and should not be treated as such but helped in other ways. The criminalization of drug users contributes to generating divides in our societies. The "War on Drugs" held by the governments of countries such as USA , Mexico, Colombia, and Indonesia, created much harm to society. Drug related crimes have not always decline after a more intolerant government stance on drugs. Prohibition and crime are often seen as correlated.

T here is also evidence of successful partial decriminalization in Canada, Switzerland, Portugal and Uruguay. Other countries such as Ireland seem to be following a similar path and are planning to decriminalize some recreational drugs soon.  Moreover, The United Nations had a special session on drugs on 2016r,  UNGASS 2016 , following the request of the presidents of Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala. The goal of this session was  to analyse the effects of the war on drugs. explore new options and establish a   new paradigm in international drug policy in order to prevent the flow of resources to organized crime organizations. This meeting was seen as an opportunity, and even a call, for far-reaching drug law reforms. However, the final outcome failed to change the status quo and to trigger any ambitious reform.

However, not everyone is convinced about the need of decriminalization of recreational drugs. Some analysts point to several reasons why  drugs should not be legalized  and t he media have played an important role in shaping the public discourse and, indirectly, policy-making against legalization. For instance, t he portrayal of of the issue in British media, tabloids in particular, has reinforced harmful, dehumanising stereotypes of drug addicts as criminals. At the moment the UK government’s response is to keep on making illegal new recreational drugs. For instance,  Psychoactive Substances Bill aims at criminalizing legal highs . Those supporting the bill argue that  criminalization makes more difficult for young people to have access to these drugs and could reduce the number of people who get addicted. 

List of recreational drugs

This is the  list of recreational drugs  (in alphabetic order) which could be subject to decriminalization in the future:

• Amfetamines (speed, whizz, dexies, sulph)
• Amyl nitrates (poppers, amys, kix, TNT)
• Cannabis (marijuana, hash, hashish, weed)
• Cocaine (crack, freebase, toot)
• Ecstasy (crystal, MDMA, E)
• Heroin (H, smack, skag, brown)
• Ketamine  (K, special K, green)
• LSD (acid, paper mushrooms, tripper)
• Magic mushrooms (mushies, magics)
• Mephedrone (meow meow, drone, m cat)
• Methamfetamines (yaba, meth, crank, glass)
• Painkillers, sedatives and tranquilizers (chill pills, blues, bricks)

Pros and cons of legalization of drugs

These are some of the most commonly argued pros of legalization :

• Government would see the revenues boosted due to the money collected from taxing drugs.
• Health and safety controls on these substances could be implemented, making recreational drugs less dangerous.
• Facilitate access for medicinal use. For instance cannabis is effective treating a range of conditions. Other recreational drugs could be used in similar ways.
• Personal freedom. People would have the capacity to decide whether they experiment with drugs without having to be considered criminals or having to deal with illegal dealers.
• Criminal gangs could run out of business and gun violence would be reduced.
• Police resources could be used in other areas and help increase security.
• The experience of decriminalization of drugs in some countries such as Portugal and Uruguay, has led to a decrease in drug related problems. 

Cons of decriminalizing drug production, distribution and use:

• New users for drugs. As in the case of legal recreational drugs, decriminalization does not imply reduction in consumption. If these substances are legal, trying them could become "more normal" than nowadays.
• Children and teenagers could more easily have access to drugs.
• Drug trafficking would remain a problem. If governments heavily tax drugs, it is likely that some criminal networks continue to produce and smuggle them providing a cheaper price for consumers.
• The first few countries which decide to legalize drugs could have problems of drug tourism.
• The rate of people driving and having accidents due drug intoxication could increase.
• Even with safety controls, drugs would continue to be a great public health problem and cause a range of diseases (damamge to the brain and lungs, heart diseases, mental health conditions).
• People may still become addicts and die from legalized drugs, as in America's opioid crisis.

What do think, should recreational drugs be legalized or decriminalized? Which of them?  Is legalising drugs being soft on crime?  Is the prohibition on drugs making the work of the police more difficult and diverting resources away from other more important issues? Join the discussion and share arguments and resources on the forum below .

Watch these videos on decriminalization of drugs

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Should Drugs Be Legalized? Pros and Cons

Discover the pros and cons of drug legalization. Explore the economic benefits and potential risks. Join the debate now!

The Debate on Drug Legalization

The topic of drug legalization is a subject of intense debate and controversy. It elicits strong opinions from various stakeholders, including policymakers, law enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, and the general public. Understanding the arguments surrounding drug legalization is essential to navigate this complex issue.

Introduction to the Controversy

The debate on drug legalization centers around whether certain drugs should be made legal for various purposes, such as medical use, recreational use, or both. Advocates argue that legalization can bring about positive outcomes, such as economic benefits, reduced crime rates, and improved regulation and quality control. On the other hand, opponents express concerns about potential increases in drug use, public health risks, and societal impacts.

The discussion on drug legalization is often intertwined with specific substances, such as marijuana, which has been a focal point of the drug policy reform movement. Legalization of marijuana, in particular, has gained traction in several countries and states, prompting further exploration of drug policy reform.

Understanding the Arguments

Proponents of drug legalization put forth compelling arguments. One key aspect is the potential economic benefits. Legalization can create new industries, generate tax revenue, and redirect resources that were previously allocated to law enforcement towards education, prevention, and addiction treatment. Additionally, legalization is often associated with a decrease in drug-related crimes, as the illicit market diminishes and quality control measures are implemented.

However, opponents express concerns about the potential increase in drug use that could result from legalization. They argue that making drugs more accessible may lead to higher addiction rates and public health consequences. Substance abuse can have severe implications on individuals, families, and communities, necessitating a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, education, and access to drug addiction treatment options .

Societal impacts are another area of contention. Critics of drug legalization worry about potential negative consequences, such as impaired cognitive function, impaired driving, and disruptions to social order. They argue that the cost of addressing these issues may outweigh any perceived benefits of legalization.

Understanding the arguments surrounding drug legalization is crucial to informed decision-making and policy development. By exploring the pros and cons of drug legalization, policymakers and society can strive to strike a balance between individual freedom, public safety, and the well-being of communities.

Pros of Drug Legalization

While the debate surrounding drug legalization is complex and multifaceted, there are several potential benefits that proponents of drug legalization often highlight. This section will explore three key advantages: economic benefits, reduction in crime, and regulation and quality control.

Economic Benefits

One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is the potential for significant economic benefits. Legalizing drugs can create new revenue streams through taxation and regulation. The legal drug market can generate substantial tax revenue, which can be directed towards public services, education, healthcare, and addiction treatment programs.

Moreover, drug legalization can also stimulate economic growth by creating jobs in various sectors, such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail. This can have a positive ripple effect on the economy, providing employment opportunities and boosting local businesses.

Reduction in Crime

Another argument in favor of drug legalization is the potential for a reduction in certain types of crime. Many drug-related crimes are a result of the illegal nature of drug trade. By legalizing drugs, the illicit market is disrupted, and the associated crimes, such as drug trafficking and violence, can potentially decrease.

Legalization can also free up law enforcement resources, allowing them to focus on more serious crimes. Instead of targeting drug users, law enforcement can redirect their efforts towards prevention, education, and addressing more pressing public safety concerns.

Regulation and Quality Control

Legalizing drugs provides an opportunity for regulation and quality control. Under a regulated system, drugs can be manufactured, distributed, and sold under strict guidelines and standards. This can ensure that drugs are produced in safe environments, reducing the risk of contamination or the presence of harmful substances.

Regulation also allows for accurate labeling and dosage information, empowering individuals to make informed decisions about their drug use. By controlling the supply chain, the government can implement measures to monitor and mitigate potential risks associated with drug use, such as overdose prevention and harm reduction strategies.

To fully understand the pros and cons of drug legalization, it's important to consider the counterarguments and the potential drawbacks associated with this approach. In the following section, we will explore the cons of drug legalization, including the potential increase in drug use, public health concerns, and the impact on society.

Cons of Drug Legalization

While the debate on drug legalization presents various perspectives and arguments, there are valid concerns regarding the potential consequences of such a decision. This section will explore some of the cons associated with drug legalization, including the potential increase in drug use, public health concerns, and the impact on society.

Potential Increase in Drug Use

One of the primary concerns surrounding drug legalization is the potential increase in drug use. Critics argue that making drugs more accessible through legalization may lead to a rise in consumption, particularly among vulnerable populations such as youth or individuals who were previously deterred by the illegal status of drugs. This increase in drug use can have detrimental effects on individuals and communities, leading to potential health issues, addiction problems, and social consequences.

Public Health Concerns

Legalizing drugs can present significant public health concerns. The availability and increased use of drugs can lead to a surge in substance abuse disorders and related health problems. The healthcare system may face challenges in managing the increased demand for drug addiction treatment options. Additionally, the use of certain drugs, especially those with harmful effects on physical and mental health, can strain public health resources and contribute to the overall burden on the healthcare system.

Impact on Society

Drug legalization can have wide-ranging impacts on society as a whole. Critics argue that increased drug use can lead to negative social consequences, including impaired productivity, strained relationships, and potential increases in crime rates. The potential for addiction and its associated consequences, such as financial instability and strained family dynamics, can also put a burden on social support systems. Furthermore, the normalization of drug use through legalization may influence social norms and attitudes, potentially leading to a shift in societal values and acceptance of drug use.

It's important to consider these cons of drug legalization alongside the pros to have a comprehensive understanding of the issue. The debate surrounding drug policy reform is complex, involving multiple perspectives and considerations. Exploring case studies from countries with different drug policies can provide valuable insights into the potential consequences of drug legalization.

Examining Different Approaches

When discussing the topic of drug legalization , it is important to consider the various approaches that have been taken. This section explores the difference between decriminalization and legalization, examines case studies of countries with different drug policies, and highlights the lessons learned from these approaches.

Decriminalization vs. Legalization

Decriminalization and legalization are two distinct approaches to drug policy. While they may appear similar, it is crucial to understand their differences.

Decriminalization involves reducing the legal penalties associated with drug possession and use. In decriminalized systems, drug offenses are often treated as civil infractions or minor offenses, resulting in administrative penalties such as fines or mandatory drug education programs. However, drug production and distribution may still remain illegal.

On the other hand, legalization goes beyond decriminalization. It involves removing all legal prohibitions on drug possession, use, production, and distribution. Legalization typically comes with regulations and frameworks for the legal sale and consumption of drugs. This approach allows for government control and oversight, ensuring quality standards and taxation.

Case Studies: Countries with Different Drug Policies

Examining the drug policies implemented in various countries can provide valuable insights into the potential outcomes of different approaches. Here are a few notable case studies:

Lessons Learned

Analyzing the experiences of countries with different drug policies can provide valuable lessons for policymakers and stakeholders. While the impacts and outcomes of drug policy are complex and multifaceted, some common themes emerge:

• Impact on Drug Use : The approach taken, whether decriminalization or legalization, can have varying effects on drug use rates. It is important to carefully monitor and evaluate these outcomes to inform future policy decisions.
• Public Health and Harm Reduction : Countries that prioritize public health and harm reduction in their drug policies have seen positive results. These include increased access to treatment and support services, reduced overdose deaths, and improved public health outcomes.
• Regulation and Control : Legalization allows for government regulation and control over drug production, distribution, and sales. This can help ensure product quality, safety, and consumer protection.
• Social and Cultural Implications : Drug policy changes can have broader social and cultural implications. It is essential to consider the potential impact on communities, families, and vulnerable populations when formulating drug policies.

By examining different approaches to drug policy and studying the experiences of countries around the world, policymakers can gain valuable insights into the potential benefits and challenges associated with drug decriminalization and legalization.

Considerations and Caveats

As the debate on drug legalization continues, it is important to consider several key factors and potential concerns. While there are arguments both for and against drug legalization, it is essential to analyze the possible implications and challenges that may arise. This section explores three significant considerations and caveats surrounding the topic.

Balancing Individual Freedom and Public Safety

One of the main considerations in the debate on drug legalization is finding a balance between individual freedom and public safety. Advocates for drug legalization argue that individuals should have the freedom to make choices about their own bodies and that criminalizing drugs infringes upon personal liberties. They argue that the government should focus on harm reduction strategies and providing access to drug addiction treatment options rather than punitive measures.

On the other hand, opponents of drug legalization express concerns about the potential risks to public safety. They argue that legalizing drugs may lead to increased substance abuse, addiction rates, and associated social problems. Striking a balance between individual freedom and public safety is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration and evidence-based policies.

Potential Social and Cultural Implications

Drug legalization can have significant social and cultural implications. The normalization and increased availability of drugs may impact societal norms, especially among vulnerable populations. It is crucial to examine how drug legalization may influence perceptions of drug use and the overall fabric of society.

Furthermore, cultural factors play a role in shaping attitudes towards drug use and addiction. Different societies have varying beliefs, values, and traditions surrounding drug use. When considering drug legalization, it is essential to take into account the potential impact on cultural norms and the potential for shifts in societal behavior.

Addressing the Root Causes of Drug Use

A critical caveat in the discussion of drug legalization is the need to address the root causes of drug use. While some argue that legalization may help reduce drug-related crimes and violence, it is essential to recognize that drug addiction is often a symptom of underlying issues such as poverty, mental health concerns, and social inequality.

Merely legalizing drugs without addressing the underlying factors that contribute to drug use may not effectively address the problem. It is crucial to prioritize comprehensive drug policy reform that includes a focus on prevention, education, and access to drug addiction treatment options . By addressing the root causes, society can work towards reducing drug addiction rates and improving overall public health.

As the debate on drug legalization unfolds, it is vital to consider these considerations and caveats. Balancing the tension between individual freedom and public safety, understanding the potential social and cultural implications, and prioritizing efforts to address the root causes of drug use are crucial aspects of developing sound drug policies. By examining these factors, policymakers and society as a whole can make informed decisions regarding drug legalization.

In the ongoing debate on drug legalization, it is essential to explore different approaches and examine real-world examples to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Decriminalization and legalization are two distinct strategies when it comes to drug policy. Decriminalization typically involves reducing or eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession, treating it as a civil offense instead. This approach aims to prioritize public health and harm reduction rather than punishment.

On the other hand, legalization involves removing legal restrictions on drug production, distribution, and consumption. It allows for the regulation and taxation of drugs, similar to how alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Proponents argue that legalization can lead to improved public safety, quality control, and revenue generation.

Both decriminalization and legalization seek to address the negative consequences of drug prohibition. However, they differ in the extent of regulation and control over drug use and production. Each approach has its own set of advantages and challenges, which must be carefully considered.

Several countries have implemented various drug policies, providing valuable insights into the potential effects of different approaches. Exploring these case studies helps shed light on the complex issue of drug legalization.

• Portugal : In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of all drugs. Instead of facing criminal charges, individuals caught with drugs are referred to a dissuasion commission that assesses their situation and determines appropriate responses, such as fines or referrals to treatment. This approach aimed to reduce drug-related harms and prioritize public health. Studies have shown positive outcomes, including decreased drug-related deaths, HIV transmission rates, and drug-related crime.
• Uruguay : In 2013, Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize the production, sale, and consumption of marijuana. The government regulates and controls the entire process, from cultivation to distribution. The primary goals of this policy were to combat drug trafficking, reduce drug-related violence, and protect public health. While it is still relatively early to assess the long-term impacts, initial reports suggest positive outcomes, such as decreased illegal market activity and increased access to regulated and safer products.

Examining these case studies reveals valuable lessons that can inform the ongoing debate on drug legalization:

• Focus on public health : Prioritizing public health and harm reduction is crucial. Policies that emphasize treatment, prevention, and education can yield positive results.
• Regulation and control : Implementing strict regulations and quality control measures are vital to ensure the safety and efficacy of legalized drugs.
• Addressing social factors : Drug use often stems from underlying social issues such as poverty, inequality, and lack of access to healthcare. Addressing these root causes is essential for comprehensive drug policy reform.

By examining different approaches and learning from real-world experiences, policymakers can make informed decisions regarding drug legalization. It is crucial to consider the potential benefits and challenges associated with each approach, with the ultimate goal of promoting public health and safety while addressing the complex issues surrounding drug use and addiction.

Pros and Cons of Legalising Drugs

Drug Legalization: Pro and Con

Should drugs be legalized? Legalization pros and cons

Related posts

Start Your Journey with Us

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Should the United States Decriminalize the Possession of Drugs?

Several states have voted to reform their drug laws in response to the opioid epidemic and as a way to address high rates of drug-related incarceration. What do you think of this, and other, solutions?

By Nicole Daniels and Natalie Proulx

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

Attitudes around drugs have changed considerably over the past few decades. Voters’ approval of drug-related initiatives in several states in the Nov. 3 election made that clear:

New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana and Arizona joined 11 other states that had already legalized recreational marijuana. Mississippi and South Dakota made medical marijuana legal, bringing the total to 35. The citizens of Washington, D.C., voted to decriminalize psilocybin, the organic compound active in psychedelic mushrooms. Oregon voters approved two drug-related initiatives. One decriminalized possession of small amounts of illegal drugs including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines. (It did not make it legal to sell the drugs.) Another measure authorized the creation of a state program to license providers of psilocybin.

What is your reaction to these measures? Do you think more states — or even the entire country — should decriminalize marijuana? What about other drugs?

In “ This Election, a Divided America Stands United on One Topic ,” Jonah Engel Bromwich writes about the growing support to decriminalize drugs in the United States:

Election night represented a significant victory for three forces pushing for drug reform for different but interlocking reasons. There is the increasingly powerful cannabis industry. There are state governments struggling with budget shortfalls, hungry to fill coffers in the midst of a pandemic. And then there are the reform advocates, who for decades have been saying that imprisonment, federal mandatory minimum sentences and prohibitive cash bail for drug charges ruin lives and communities, particularly those of Black Americans. Decriminalization is popular, in part, because Americans believe that too many people are in jails and prisons, and also because Americans personally affected by the country’s continuing opioid crisis have been persuaded to see drugs as a public health issue.

Then, Mr. Bromwich explores the history of the “war on drugs”:

President Nixon started the war on drugs but it grew increasingly draconian during the Reagan administration. Nancy Reagan’s top priority was the antidrug campaign, which she pushed aggressively as her husband signed a series of punitive measures into law — measures shaped in part by Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator. “We want you to help us create an outspoken intolerance for drug use,” Mrs. Reagan said in 1986. “For the sake of our children, I implore each of you to be unyielding and inflexible in your opposition to drugs.” America’s airwaves were flooded with antidrug initiatives. An ad campaign that starred a man frying an egg and claiming “this is your brain on drugs” was introduced in 1987 and aired incessantly. Numerous animal mascots took up the cause of warning children about drugs and safety, including Daren the Lion, who educated children on drugs and bullying, and McGruff the Crime Dog, who taught children to open their hearts and minds to authority figures. In 1986 Congress passed a law mandating severe prison sentences for users of crack, who were disproportionately Black . In 1989, with prison rates rising, 64 percent of Americans surveyed said that drug abuse was the most serious problem facing the United States. The focus on crack meant that when pot returned to the headlines in the 1990s, it received comparatively cozy publicity . In 1996, California voters passed a measure allowing for the use of medical marijuana. Two years later, medical marijuana initiatives were approved by voters in four more states.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Drug Legalization?: Time for a real debate

Subscribe to governance weekly, paul stares ps paul stares.

March 1, 1996

• 11 min read

Whether Bill Clinton “inhaled” when trying marijuana as a college student was about the closest the last presidential campaign came to addressing the drug issue. The present one, however, could be very different. For the fourth straight year, a federally supported nationwide survey of American secondary school students by the University of Michigan has indicated increased drug use. After a decade or more in which drug use had been falling, the Republicans will assuredly blame the bad news on President Clinton and assail him for failing to carry on the Bush and Reagan administrations’ high-profile stand against drugs. How big this issue becomes is less certain, but if the worrisome trend in drug use among teens continues, public debate about how best to respond to the drug problem will clearly not end with the election. Indeed, concern is already mounting that the large wave of teenagers—the group most at risk of taking drugs—that will crest around the turn of the century will be accompanied by a new surge in drug use.

As in the past, some observers will doubtless see the solution in much tougher penalties to deter both suppliers and consumers of illicit psychoactive substances. Others will argue that the answer lies not in more law enforcement and stiffer sanctions, but in less. Specifically, they will maintain that the edifice of domestic laws and international conventions that collectively prohibit the production, sale, and consumption of a large array of drugs for anything other than medical or scientific purposes has proven physically harmful, socially divisive, prohibitively expensive, and ultimately counterproductive in generating the very incentives that perpetuate a violent black market for illicit drugs. They will conclude, moreover, that the only logical step for the United States to take is to “legalize” drugs—in essence repeal and disband the current drug laws and enforcement mechanisms in much the same way America abandoned its brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

Although the legalization alternative typically surfaces when the public’s anxiety about drugs and despair over existing policies are at their highest, it never seems to slip off the media radar screen for long. Periodic incidents—such as the heroin-induced death of a young, affluent New York City couple in 1995 or the 1993 remark by then Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders that legalization might be beneficial and should be studied—ensure this. The prominence of many of those who have at various times made the case for legalization—such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, and George Shultz—also helps. But each time the issue of legalization arises, the same arguments for and against are dusted off and trotted out, leaving us with no clearer understanding of what it might entail and what the effect might be.

As will become clear, drug legalization is not a public policy option that lends itself to simplistic or superficial debate. It requires dissection and scrutiny of an order that has been remarkably absent despite the attention it perennially receives. Beyond discussion of some very generally defined proposals, there has been no detailed assessment of the operational meaning of legalization. There is not even a commonly accepted lexicon of terms to allow an intellectually rigorous exchange to take place. Legalization, as a consequence, has come to mean different things to different people. Some, for example, use legalization interchangeably with “decriminalization,” which usually refers to removing criminal sanctions for possessing small quantities of drugs for personal use. Others equate legalization, at least implicitly, with complete deregulation, failing in the process to acknowledge the extent to which currently legally available drugs are subject to stringent controls.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government—including the Clinton administration—has done little to improve the debate. Although it has consistently rejected any retreat from prohibition, its stance has evidently not been based on in- depth investigation of the potential costs and benefits. The belief that legalization would lead to an instant and dramatic increase in drug use is considered to be so self-evident as to warrant no further study. But if this is indeed the likely conclusion of any study, what is there to fear aside from criticism that relatively small amounts of taxpayer money had been wasted in demonstrating what everyone had believed at the outset? Wouldn’t such an outcome in any case help justify the continuation of existing policies and convincingly silence those—admittedly never more than a small minority—calling for legalization?

A real debate that acknowledges the unavoidable complexities and uncertainties surrounding the notion of drug legalization is long overdue. Not only would it dissuade people from making the kinds of casual if not flippant assertions—both for and against—that have permeated previous debates about legalization, but it could also stimulate a larger and equally critical assessment of current U.S. drug control programs and priorities.

First Ask the Right Questions

Many arguments appear to make legalization a compelling alternative to today’s prohibitionist policies. Besides undermining the black-market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could remove or at least significantly reduce the very problems that cause the greatest public concern: the crime, corruption, and violence that attend the operation of illicit drug markets. It would presumably also diminish the damage caused by the absence of quality controls on illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle sharing and other unhygienic practices. Furthermore, governments could abandon the costly and largely futile effort to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and jail drug offenders, spending the money thus saved to educate people not to take drugs and treat those who become addicted.

However, what is typically portrayed as a fairly straightforward process of lifting prohibitionist controls to reap these putative benefits would in reality entail addressing an extremely complex set of regulatory issues. As with most if not all privately and publicly provided goods, the key regulatory questions concern the nature of the legally available drugs, the terms of their supply, and the terms of their consumption (see page 21).

What becomes immediately apparent from even a casual review of these questions—and the list presented here is by no means exhaustive—is that there is an enormous range of regulatory permutations for each drug. Until all the principal alternatives are clearly laid out in reasonable detail, however, the potential costs and benefits of each cannot begin to be responsibly assessed. This fundamental point can be illustrated with respect to the two central questions most likely to sway public opinion. What would happen to drug consumption under more permissive regulatory regimes? And what would happen to crime?

Relaxing the availability of psychoactive substances not already commercially available, opponents typically argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial rise in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin, and cocaine addiction in various countries before international controls took effect, the rise in alcohol consumption after the Volstead Act was repealed in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among medical professionals with greater access to prescription drugs. Without explaining the basis of their calculations, some have predicted dramatic increases in the number of people taking drugs and becoming addicted. These increases would translate into considerable direct and indirect costs to society, including higher public health spending as a result of drug overdoses, fetal deformities, and other drug-related misadventures such as auto accidents; loss of productivity due to worker absenteeism and on-the-job accidents; and more drug-induced violence, child abuse, and other crimes, to say nothing about educational impairment.

Advocates of legalization concede that consumption would probably rise, but counter that it is not axiomatic that the increase would be very large or last very long, especially if legalization were paired with appropriate public education programs. They too cite historical evidence to bolster their claims, noting that consumption of opium, heroin, and cocaine had already begun falling before prohibition took effect, that alcohol consumption did not rise suddenly after prohibition was lifted, and that decriminalization of cannabis use in 11 U.S. states in the 1970s did not precipitate a dramatic rise in its consumption. Some also point to the legal sale of cannabis products through regulated outlets in the Netherlands, which also does not seem to have significantly boosted use by Dutch nationals. Public opinion polls showing that most Americans would not rush off to try hitherto forbidden drugs that suddenly became available are likewise used to buttress the pro-legalization case.

Neither side’s arguments are particularly reassuring. The historical evidence is ambiguous at best, even assuming that the experience of one era is relevant to another. Extrapolating the results of policy steps in one country to another with different sociocultural values runs into the same problem. Similarly, within the United States the effect of decriminalization at the state level must be viewed within the general context of continued federal prohibition. And opinion polls are known to be unreliable.

More to the point, until the nature of the putative regulatory regime is specified, such discussions are futile. It would be surprising, for example, if consumption of the legalized drugs did not increase if they were to become commercially available the way that alcohol and tobacco products are today, complete with sophisticated packaging, marketing, and advertising. But more restrictive regimes might see quite different outcomes. In any case, the risk of higher drug consumption might be acceptable if legalization could reduce dramatically if not remove entirely the crime associated with the black market for illicit drugs while also making some forms of drug use safer. Here again, there are disputed claims.

Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activity and its associated problems would disappear or even fall very much. But, as before, addressing this question requires knowing the specifics of the regulatory regime, especially the terms of supply. If drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, opportunities for illicit undercutting would appear to be rather small. Under a more restrictive regime, such as government-controlled outlets or medical prescription schemes, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to remain or evolve to satisfy the legally unfulfilled demand. In short, the desire to control access to stem consumption has to be balanced against the black market opportunities that would arise. Schemes that risk a continuing black market require more questions—about the new black markets operation over time, whether it is likely to be more benign than existing ones, and more broadly whether the trade-off with other benefits still makes the effort worthwhile.

The most obvious case is regulating access to drugs by adolescents and young adults. Under any regime, it is hard to imagine that drugs that are now prohibited would become more readily available than alcohol and tobacco are today. Would a black market in drugs for teenagers emerge, or would the regulatory regime be as leaky as the present one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to either question would lessen the attractiveness of legalization.

What about the International Repercussions?

Not surprisingly, the wider international ramifications of drug legalization have also gone largely unremarked. Here too a long set of questions remains to be addressed. Given the longstanding U.S. role as the principal sponsor of international drug control measures, how would a decision to move toward legalizing drugs affect other countries? What would become of the extensive regime of multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements? Would every nation have to conform to a new set of rules? If not, what would happen? Would more permissive countries be suddenly swamped by drugs and drug consumers, or would traffickers focus on the countries where tighter restrictions kept profits higher? This is not an abstract question. The Netherlands’ liberal drug policy has attracted an influx of “drug tourists” from neighboring countries, as did the city of Zurich’s following the now abandoned experiment allowing an open drug market to operate in what became known as “Needle Park.” And while it is conceivable that affluent countries could soften the worst consequences of drug legalization through extensive public prevention and drug treatment programs, what about poorer countries?

Finally, what would happen to the principal suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all of the main markets? Would the trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illicit enterprises? What would happen to the source countries? Would they benefit or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly spring up elsewhere? Such questions have not even been posed in a systematic way, let alone seriously studied.

Irreducible Uncertainties

Although greater precision in defining more permissive regulatory regimes is critical to evaluating their potential costs and benefits, it will not resolve the uncertainties that exist. Only implementation will do that. Because small-scale experimentation (assuming a particular locality’s consent to be a guinea pig) would inevitably invite complaints that the results were biased or inconclusive, implementation would presumably have to be widespread, even global, in nature.

Yet jettisoning nearly a century of prohibition when the putative benefits remain so uncertain and the potential costs are so high would require a herculean leap of faith. Only an extremely severe and widespread deterioration of the current drug situation, nationally and internationally—is likely to produce the consensus—again, nationally and internationally that could impel such a leap. Even then the legislative challenge would be stupendous. The debate over how to set the conditions for controlling access to each of a dozen popular drugs could consume the legislatures of the major industrial countries for years.

None of this should deter further analysis of drug legalization. In particular, a rigorous assessment of a range of hypothetical regulatory regimes according to a common set of variables would clarify their potential costs, benefits, and trade- offs. Besides instilling much-needed rigor into any further discussion of the legalization alternative, such analysis could encourage the same level of scrutiny of current drug control programs and policies. With the situation apparently deteriorating in the United States as well as abroad, there is no better time for a fundamental reassessment of whether our existing responses to this problem are sufficient to meet the likely challenges ahead.

Governance Studies

Nicole Gastala, Harold Pollack, Vanda Felbab-Brown

August 27, 2024

Stuart M. Butler

August 23, 2024

Greg Midgette, Peter Reuter, Vanda Felbab-Brown

August 20, 2024

Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated in its Jan. 6, 1995 paper titled “Against Drug Prohibition”:

“The best evidence of prohibition’s failure is the government’s current war on drugs. This war, instead of employing a strategy of prevention, research, education and social programs designed to address problems such as permanent poverty, long term unemployment and deteriorating living conditions in our inner cities, has employed a strategy of law enforcement. While this military approach continues to devour billions of tax dollars and sends tens of thousands of people to prison, illegal drug trafficking thrives, violence escalates and drug abuse continues to debilitate lives… Those who benefit the most from prohibition are organized crime barons, who derive an estimated $10 to $50 billion a year from the illegal drug trade. Indeed, the criminal drug laws protect drug traffickers from taxation, regulation and quality control… In the same way that alcohol prohibition fueled violent gangsterism in the 1920s, today’s drug prohibition has spawned a culture of drive-by shootings and other gun-related crimes… The recent steep climb in our incarceration rate has made the U.S. the world’s leading jailer… Nonviolent drug offenders make up 58 percent of the federal prison population, a population that is extremely costly to maintain… Some people, hearing the words ‘drug legalization,’ imagine pushers on street corners passing out cocaine to anyone — even children. But that is what exists today under prohibition… In the long run, ending prohibition could foster the redirection of public resources toward social development, legitimate economic opportunities and effective treatment, thus enhancing the safety, health and well-being of the entire society.” May 25, 2005

Benson Roe, MD, Professor and Chief Emeritus at the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, wrote in his article (accessed on Nov. 18, 2005) titled “Why We Should Legalize Drugs,” posted on the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy’s website :

“[N]owhere can be found reliable, objective scientific evidence that [illicit drugs] are any more harmful than other substances and activities that are legal. In view of the enormous expense, the carnage and the obvious futility of the ‘drug war,’ resulting in massive criminalization of society, it is high time to examine the supposed justification for keeping certain substances illegal. Those who initiated those prohibitions and those who now so vigorously seek to enforce them have not made their objectives clear. Are they to protect us from evil, from addiction, or from poison?… The concept of evil is derived from subjective values and is difficult to define. Just why certain (illegal) substances are singularly more evil than legal substances like alcohol has not been explained… Addiction is also a relative and ubiquitous phenomenon… Some people are more susceptible to addiction than others and some ‘needs’ are more addictive than others. Probably the most addictive substance in our civilization is tobacco – yet no one has suggested making it illegal… And ‘poison’ is also a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are ‘deadly poisons’ is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these substances – most of them have been consumed in large quantities for centuries – were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!” Nov. 18, 2005

Joseph D. McNamara, PhD, former chief police in Kansas City, MO and San Jose, CA, stated during a symposium organized by the National Review for its July 1, 1996 cover story titled “Abolish the Drug Laws”:

“About $500 worth of heroin or cocaine in a source country will bring in as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. All the cops, armies, prisons, and executions in the world cannot impede a market with that kind of tax-free profit margin. It is the illegality that permits the obscene markup, enriching drug traffickers, distributors, dealers, crooked cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, bankers, businessmen… Sadly, the police have been pushed into a war they did not start and cannot win. It was not the police who lobbied in 1914 for passage of the Harrison Act, which first criminalized drugs… If drugs had been outlawed because the police had complained that drug use caused crime and disorder, the policy would have been more acceptable to the public and won more compliance. And the conviction that the use of certain drugs is immoral chills the ability to scrutinize rationally and to debate the effects of the drug war… To enforce drug laws the police have to resort to undercover work, which is dangerous to them and also to innocent bystanders. Drug enforcement often involves questionable ethical behavior by the police, such as… letting a guilty person go free because he enticed someone else into violating the law… Police scandals are an untallied cost of the drug war. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and even the Coast Guard have had to admit to corruption. The gravity of the police crimes is as disturbing as the volume… The drug war is as lethal as it is corrupting. And the police and drug criminals are not the only casualties.” July 1, 1996

The Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank, makes the following policy recommendations to the 108th Congress in its Dec. 2004 “Cato Handbook for Congress”:

“There are a number of reasons why Congress should end the federal government’s war on drugs. First and foremost, the federal drug laws are constitutionally dubious… Congress never asked the American people for additional constitutional powers to declare a war on drug consumers. That usurpation of power is something that few politicians or their court intellectuals wish to discuss… [D]rug prohibition is a classic example of throwing money at a problem. The federal government spends some $19 billion to enforce the drug laws every year—all to no avail. For years drug war bureaucrats have been tailoring their budget requests to the latest news reports. When drug use goes up, taxpayers are told the government needs more money so that it can redouble its efforts against a rising drug scourge. When drug use goes down, taxpayers are told that it would be a big mistake to curtail spending just when progress is being made… One of the broader lessons that [recent presidents and congresses] should have learned is this: prohibition laws should be judged according to their real-world effects, not their promised benefits… Congress should repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, shut down the Drug Enforcement Administration, and let the states set their own policies with regard to currently illegal drugs… Repeal of prohibition would take the astronomical profits out of the drug business and destroy the drug kingpins who terrorize parts of our cities… Not only would there be less crime; reform would also free federal agents to concentrate on terrorism and espionage and free local police agents to concentrate on robbery, burglary, and violent crime.” Dec. 2004

Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist, wrote in an Aug. 3, 2002 article for Townhall.com titled “In Drug War, Honesty is Best Policy,” that:

“There isn’t space here to outline all the arguments for and against legalization of some drugs, but it’s clear that: drugs are easy to get; the drug subculture thrives in part because it is forbidden and therefore attractive; dollar for dollar, the billions we funnel into this ‘war’ would be better spent on education, prevention and treatment. Would it not be better to control those substances, tax them, limit their availability to minors as we try to do with alcohol, rather than criminalize a huge segment of the population that probably includes many of our neighbors and even our own children? The genie in the bottle is truth, and the truth is that all drugs are not awful, evil or equally harmful… Truth is also this: Drug abuse is different from drug use, just as alcoholism is different from the weekend cocktail party. Rather than fight the abuse war from a moral, shame-on-you posture, which doesn’t work with any age, we might try a medical model that educates with facts and urges human wisdom… Think of it as an investment in credibility so that potential users tune in to the discussion on consequences that needs to follow.” Aug. 3, 2002

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in the summary of its May 2003 booklet titled “Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization,” stated:

“We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent… The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven’t eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal. Legalization of drugs will lead to increased use and increased levels of addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably… Alaska’s experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990… Most non-violent drug users get treatment, not jail time. The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.” May 2003

John Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), wrote in a July 19, 2002 op-ed article titled “Don’t Legalize Drugs” in the Wall Street Journal that:

“The charge that ‘nothing works’ in the fight against illegal drugs has led some people to grasp at an apparent solution: legalize drugs… Better, the argument goes, for the government to control the trade in narcotics. That should drive down the prices (heroin would be ‘no more expensive than lettuce,’ argues one proponent), eliminate violence, provide tax revenue, reduce prison crowding, and foster supervised injection facilities. Sounds good. But is it realistic?… Legalizers overstate the social costs of prohibition, just as they understate the social costs of legalization… Legalization, by removing penalties and reducing price, would increase drug demand. Make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it… Legalizers like to argue that government-supervised production and distribution of addictive drugs will eliminate the dangers attributed to drug prohibition. But when analyzing this ‘harm reduction’ argument, consider the abuse of the opiate OxyContin, which has resulted in numerous deaths, physicians facing criminal charges, and addicts attacking pharmacies. OxyContin is a legally prescribed substance, with appropriate medical uses—that is, it satisfies those conditions legalizers envision for cocaine and heroin. The point is clear: The laws are not the problem… Legalization is a dangerous mirage. To address a crime problem, we are asked to accept a public health crisis. Yet if we were to surrender, we would surely face both problems—intensified.” July 19, 2002

The Drug Free America Foundation stated in its “Myths About the Drug War” posted on its website (accessed Nov. 18, 2005):

“Under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors… While ‘government drugs’ could conceivably be priced low enough to eliminate competition, perhaps by having taxpayers subsidize them to discourage a black market, the combination of low price and wide availability would result in greater consumption, and consequently increased addiction. Increased consumption and addiction lead to drug-related crime. This government regulation argument ignores the dangerously addictive nature of drugs. And finally, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age –a faction of the population that can be targeted by those looking to profit from the sale of drugs.” Nov. 18, 2005

Charles D. Mabry, MD, Assistant Professor at the College of Medicine at the University of Arkansas, wrote in an Oct. 2001 article titled “Physicians and the War on Drugs: The Case Against Legalization,” published in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons that:

“Does making addictive drugs illegal work? Cocaine and potent narcotics were freely sold in America until the first two decades of the 20th century, and the number of patients addicted dropped sharply once availability was curtailed… More recently, several European countries have experimented with various attempts to legalize or decriminalize some illegal drugs. These experiments have resulted in a rise in the number of drug-addicted patients and a corresponding increase in the crime rate… The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse has stated the situation concerning illicit drugs in this country most eloquently: ‘Drugs are not a threat to American society because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are a threat to American society.’… There is another stark reality: In some cases, the only thing that forces someone who is addicted to drugs and spiraling out of control into therapy is the threat (or reality) of incarceration. Do away with laws prohibiting sale of these drugs, and you do away with the only hope of help for so many people who are addicted but just can’t stop themselves.” Oct. 2001

Ann Coulter, JD, author, wrote in her Oct. 3, 2000 article “Don’t Do Drug Legalization” for Townhall.com that:

“The most superficially appealing argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even if it ruins their lives. Except that’s not true. Back on Earth, see, we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. Ann has to pay for their stupid decisions. ‘We’ have to ‘invest’ in ‘our’ future by supporting people who freely choose to inject drugs in their own bodies and then become incapable of holding jobs, obtaining housing and taking care of their children. So it’s not really quite accurate to say drugs hurt no one but the user, at least until we’ve repealed the welfare state… Drugs enslave people. So do cigarettes and alcohol, the drug legalizers say… Assume alcohol and cigarettes induce dependency, ruin lives, cause disease, depression, countless traffic injuries and fatalities, and increase the incidence of homicide and suicide. This is supposed to be an argument for legalizing another drug like them?” Oct. 3, 2000

More Civil Liberties Debates

• Should Abortion Be Legal?
• Should Parents or Other Adults be Able to Ban Books from Schools and Libraries?
• Is the USA PATRIOT Act a Good Law?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• ACLU – Pros & Cons
• Top Pro & Con Quotes
• Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
• Historical Timeline
• Did You Know?
• ACLU Positions on Issues from Abortion to the War on Terror
• ACLU Structure
• ACLU: What They Do and How They Do It
• Opinion Polls/Surveys
• US Constitution and Bill of Rights

Cite This Page

• Additional Resources
• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

New Times, New Thinking.

Why drugs should be not only decriminalised, but fully legalised

The “War on Drugs” has failed. It’s time that governments, not gangsters, run the drug market.

By Michael Plant and Peter Singer

In 1971, Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one”. This marked the start of the “ War on Drugs ”, a global escalation in police and military efforts to crack down on drug users and the illicit drug trade.

In the past five decades, three things have become clear. First, the War on Drugs has not been won. Although a 1998 UN special session aimed to create “a drug-free world” by 2008, illicit drugs are still plainly available today in nearly every town and city in the world. In fact, a 2013 paper in the British Medical Journal found that, between 1990 and 2007, the prices of heroin, cocaine and cannabis in the US dropped by over 80 per cent while their purity increased. The story was similar for Europe and Australia.

Second, the War on Drugs cannot be won. People take drugs hoping to feel pleasure and soothe their distress. These desires are not going away. People who want drugs are not deterred by criminal sanctions either: a 2014 report by the UK’s Home Office did not find “any obvious relationship between the toughness of a country’s enforcement against drug possession, and levels of drug use in that country”. It is also effectively impossible to stop the supply of such profitable products – a kilo of cocaine can be bought in Colombia for $1,500 but sells for 40 times that on American streets . Enforcement suffers from the “balloon effect” : successfully squeezing production in one area merely moves it elsewhere.

Third, the War on Drugs is expensive. The US alone has spent over $1trn on drug enforcement . Then there are the costs measured in human suffering: one-fifth of the US prison population, 450,000 people , are incarcerated for a drug offence. These sentences have lifelong effects. In Mexico, attempts to tackle drug trafficking organisations led to an escalation in violence, with 150,000 deaths since 2006 . In the Philippines, up to 20,000 people supposedly involved in the drug trade have died in extrajudicial killings.

It’s increasingly obvious to the public that the War on Drugs has failed and a new approach is required. In the UK, one poll found over two-thirds think criminal punishments are ineffective at deterring drug users or sellers; another poll found twice as many support cannabis legalisation as oppose it. Fifty-five per cent of Americans support decriminalisation – removing criminal penalties for possessing small quantities of drugs – and last November, voters in Oregon approved ballot Measure 110 , making it the first state to move toward decriminalisation.

[See also: How psychedelics change lives ]

In light of the points above, whether using drugs – in itself and independently of how the drugs are obtained – is good or bad is beside the point: people do take drugs and the War on Drugs is an expensive, ineffective and extremely harmful policy for stopping them. Therefore, the question is this: given that the War on Drugs has failed, how should drug policy be reformed?

Decriminalisation, the obvious first step, has several major benefits. Drug addicts can ask for help knowing they will not be penalised for their actions. Recreational users will no longer go to prison for the innocuous offence of trying to have a good time, and governments will save substantial sums on enforcement.

A natural, and understandable, worry people have is that decriminalisation will increase drug use, leading to crime, addiction and deaths. This fear does not seem to be borne out by the facts. Portugal decriminalised all drugs in 2001. A 2010 academic study found reductions in problematic use ( defined as injecting drugs or regular use of opioids, cocaine and/or amphetamines) and drug-related harms, such as deaths and new HIV infections – further evidence that few users are deterred by criminal sanctions.

The issue with decriminalisation, however, is that it leaves the drugs trade in the hands of criminals, affecting users but not the trade itself. Drug trafficking is a big business – the UN estimates it’s worth 1.5 per cent of global GDP. While the risks of consuming banned substances are regularly discussed, the harms caused by the trade in illicit drugs are enormous and often overlooked.

Cocaine, for example, is produced from the leaves of the coca plant, which grows in mountainous regions of Central and South American countries. Many of these regions will be under de facto control of cartels, control that is necessarily maintained by a combination of force and corruption.

[See also: The government is tripping if it thinks this renewed war on drugs won’t backfire ]

Pablo Escobar, who ran the Colombian Medellin cartel in the 1980s and 1990s, exemplifies the power and corrosive influence of criminal syndicates in drug-producing countries. He famously offered government officials “ plata o plomo” – “silver or lead” – in their first week in office: they could either accept bribes or face the threat of bullets. Not surprisingly, many opted for the silver.

Once the coca leaves are collected, they are processed to produce a white powder – cocaine – which is then smuggled to the destination country. Once there, it will be distributed by organised gangs who are enriched and empowered by the trade. They resort to violence to defend their market share from other gangs, and sometimes to bribery to defend it from the police. Finally, the cocaine reaches the end user, who pays for it.

The greatest ills associated with the illicit drug trade are a direct product of its illegality, not of the nature of the substances being sold. Americans are not killing each other to sell alcohol, although they did just that in the Prohibition era of the early 20th century. It was only the end of Prohibition that put gangsters like Al Capone out of business.

Ending the misery caused by the drug trade requires full legalisation – making it legal to produce, transport and sell currently illicit drugs – not just decriminalisation. The major barrier to reform is uncertainty about how a legal market would work.

One option would be the unconditional and unregulated legalisation of all currently illegal drugs. This would allow children to pop into a shop for a chocolate bar and a bag of heroin. Obviously, this is a terrible idea. It’s debatable whether, and to what extent, an unregulated legal market for drugs would be an improvement on what we currently have – an unregulated illegal market.

There is a better option: a regulated market, much as we have for alcohol and tobacco, with controls on who can buy what, when, where and how. It provides the flexibility to treat different drugs differently, thereby minimising the harms of drug consumption and ending those associated with the illicit drug trade.

A recent report from Transform, a UK think tank, points out there is already a range of existing regulatory frameworks used to manage legal recreational and medical drugs that currently illicit substances could be slotted in to. The report identifies five models for distributing drugs.

Supervised use : drugs are provided and taken under medical supervision only. This is used for some opiate maintenance programmes already, most famously in Switzerland , where addicts are given heroin to inject on site.

Pharmacy sales : drugs available on prescription or to registered users.

Licensed premises : vendors are licensed to sell drugs that are consumed on site, just as bars do for alcohol, and “coffee shops” do for cannabis in the Netherlands.

Licensed sales : vendors sell drugs for off-premises consumption, as happens with alcohol and tobacco, the sale of which is restricted by age.

Unlicensed sales : low-risk substances sold without a licence, and managed under existing food and drink regulations, as tea and coffee are.

Drugs could be allotted to each category based on the principle that substances with the potential to do more harm should be more restricted. Heroin, for example, would likely be for supervised use only, whereas cannabis might be distributed via licensed premises and sales.

Regulation can and should be realistic and adaptable, altering over time to reduce harm and eventually, over years, moving all trade across to the licit market where it can be controlled and taxed. This is necessarily a balancing act: if it’s too hard or expensive for consumers to buy their preferred drugs legally, the black market will persist. If it’s too easy or cheap, there could be greater substance abuse. Transitioning to licit drug markets is feasible: the US did it for alcohol in 1933 when Prohibition ended, and is doing it again now for cannabis.

[See also: Can the NHS clear its backlog? ]

The main objection to moving to a regulated drug market is that this will make drugs easier to acquire, leading to an explosion in problematic use. In fact, moving to a legal, regulated market promises society greater control. It is often easier for teenagers to buy illegal drugs, like cannabis and MDMA, than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, whose sale is regulated and age-restricted.

Like decriminalisation, legalisation is unlikely to radically alter consumption. The Netherlands effectively legalised cannabis in 1974 but has equivalent or lower annual usage rates than those of its (non-legalising) neighbours and about half those in the US . Plus, if drug consumption is deemed too high once it becomes legal and the black market has dwindled, governments can lower it by raising taxes.

Drugs can bring pleasure; drugs can be dangerous. They should be in the hands of doctors, pharmacists and regulated retailers, not criminals. Legalising drugs would make drug use safer, but the bigger impact of moving to a regulated drug market is that it would end the chaos, violence and corruption caused by the criminal networks that run the illicit drug trade. The War on Drugs has been fought. It has been lost. It’s high time for reform.

Michael Plant is the founder-director of the Happier Lives Institute and a research fellow at the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford.

Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. His books include Animal Liberation , Practical Ethics and The Life You Can Save .

This article is part of the Agora series, a collaboration between the New Statesman and Aaron James Wendland, senior research Fellow in philosophy at Massey College, Toronto. He tweets @aj_wendland .

The Saturday Read

Morning call, content from our partners.

Data defines a new era for fundraising

A prescription for success: improving the UK’s access to new medicines

A luxury cruise is an elegant way to make memories that will last a lifetime

Can Kamala Harris end America’s interregnum?

What it means to be Palestinian

Elon Musk wants us to have more children

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›
• The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

Douglas Husak and Peter de Marneffe, The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against , Cambridge University Press, 2005, 204pp., $18.99 (pbk), ISBN 0521546869.

Reviewed by William Hawk, James Madison University

In the United States the production, distribution and use of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are crimes subjecting the offender to imprisonment. The Legalization of Drugs , appearing in the series "For and Against" edited by R. G. Frey for Cambridge University Press, raises the seldom-asked philosophical question of the justification, if any, of imprisoning persons for drug offenses.

Douglas Husak questions the justification for punishing persons who use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. He develops a convincing argument that imprisonment is never morally justified for drug use. Put simply, incarceration is such a harsh penalty that drug use, generally harmless to others and less harmful to the user than commonly supposed, fails to justify it. Any legal scheme that punishes drug users to achieve another worthy goal, such as creating a disincentive to future drug users, violates principles of justice.

Peter de Marneffe contends that under some circumstances society is morally justified in punishing persons who produce and distribute heroin. He argues a theoretical point that anticipated rises in drug abuse and consequent effects on young people may justify keeping heroin production and distribution illegal. According to de Marneffe's analysis, however, harsh prison penalties currently imposed on drug offenders are unjustified.

The points of discord between Husak's and de Marneffe's positions are serious but not as telling as is their implicit agreement. Current legal practices and policies which lead to lengthy incarceration of those who produce, distribute and use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not, and cannot be, morally justified. Both arguments, against imprisoning drug users and for keeping heroin production illegal, merit a broad and careful reading.

The United States has erected an enormous legal structure involving prosecution and incarceration designed to prohibit a highly pleasurable, sometimes medically indicated and personally satisfying activity, namely using marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. At the same time, other pleasure-producing drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine, though legally regulated for the purposes of consumer safety and under-age consumption, can be purchased over the counter. As a result, while the health and safety risks of cigarettes may be greater than those proven to accompany marijuana, one can buy cigarettes from a vending machine and but go to prison for smoking marijuana. A rational legal system, according to Husak, demands a convincing, but as yet not forthcoming, explanation of why one pleasurable drug subjects users to the risk of imprisonment while the other is accommodated in restaurants.

Drug prohibitionists must face the problem that any "health risk" argument used to distinguish illicit drugs and subject offenders to prison sentences runs up against the known, yet tolerated, health risks of tobacco, as well as the additional health risks associated with incarceration. "Social costs" arguments targeting heroin or cocaine runs up against the known, yet tolerated, social costs of alcohol, as well as the additional social costs of incarceration. Even if one were to accept that illicit drugs were more harmful or exacted greater social costs than tobacco and alcohol (and the empirical studies referred to in the text do not generally support this thesis), that difference proves insufficient to justify imprisoning producers, distributors or especially users of illicit drugs.

Decriminalizing Drug Use. Douglas Husak presents a very carefully argued case for decriminalizing drug use. He begins his philosophical argument by clarifying the concepts and issues involved. To advocate the legalization of drugs calls for a legal system in which the production and sale of drugs are not criminal offenses. (p. 3) Criminalization of drugs makes the use of certain drugs a criminal offense, i.e. one deserving punishment. To argue for drug decriminalization, as Husak does, is not necessarily to argue for legalization of drugs . Husak entertains, but cautiously rejects the notion of a system where production and sale of drugs is illegal while use is not a crime. De Marneffe advocates such a system.

Punishing persons by incarceration demands justification. Since the state's use of punishment is a severe tool and incarceration is by its nature "degrading, demoralizing and dangerous" (p. 29) we must be able to provide "a compelling reason … to justify the infliction of punishment… ." (p. 34) Husak finds no compelling reason for imprisoning drug users. After considering four standard justifications for punishing drug users Husak concludes that "the arguments for criminalization are not sufficiently persuasive to justify the infliction of punishment."

Reasons to Criminalize Drug Use . 1) Drug users, it is claimed, should be punished in order to protect the health and well being of citizens . No doubt states are justified in protecting the health and well being of citizens. But does putting drug users in prison contribute to this worthy goal? Certainly not for those imprisoned. For those who might be deterred from using drugs the question is whether the drugs from which they are deterred by the threat of imprisonment actually pose a health risk. For one, Husak quotes research showing that currently illicit drugs do not obviously pose a greater health threat than alcohol or tobacco. For another, he quotes a statistic showing that approximately four times as many persons die annually from using prescribed medicines than die from using illegal drugs. In addition, one-fourth of all pack-a-day smokers lose ten to fifteen years of their lives but no one would entertain the idea of incarcerating smokers to further their health interests or in order to prevent non-smokers from beginning. In sum, Husak accepts that drug use poses health risks but contends that the risks are not greater than others that are socially accepted. Even if they were greater, imprisonment does not reduce, but compounds the health risks for prisoners.

2) Punishing drug users protects children . Husak here responds to de Marneffe's essay which focuses on potential drug abuse and promotes the welfare of children as a justification for keeping drug production and sale illegal. Husak finds punishing adolescent users a peculiar way to protect them. To punish one drug-using adolescent in order to prevent a non-using adolescent from using drugs is ineffective and also violates justice. Punishing adult users so that youth do not begin using drugs and do not suffer from neglect -- which is de Marneffe's position -- is not likely to prevent adolescents from becoming drug users, and even if it did, one would have to show that the harm prevented to the youth justifies imprisoning adults. Husak contends that punishing adults or youth, far from protecting youth, puts them at greater risk.

3) Some, e.g. former New York City mayor Guiliani, argue that punishing drug use prevents crime . Husak, conceding a connection between drug use and crime, turns the argument upside-down, showing how punishment increases rather than decreases crime. For one, criminalization of drugs forces the drug industry to settle disputes extra-legally. Secondly, drug decriminalization would likely lower drug costs thereby reducing economic crimes. Thirdly, to those who contend that illicit drugs may increase violence and aggression Husak responds that: a) empirical evidence does not support marijuana or heroin as causes of violence and b) empirical evidence does support alcohol, which is decriminalized, as leading to violence. Husak concludes "if we propose to ban those drugs that are implicated in criminal behavior, no drug would be a better candidate for criminalization than alcohol." (p. 70) Finally, punishing drug users likely increases crime rates since those imprisoned for drug use are released with greater tendencies and skills for future criminal activity.

4) Drug use ought to be punished because using drugs is immoral . In addition to standard philosophical objections to legal moralism, Husak contends that there is no good reason to think that recreational drug use is immoral. Drug use violates no rights. Other recreationally used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are not immoral. The only accounts according to which drug use is immoral are religiously based and generally not shared in the citizenry. Husak argues that legal moralism fails, and with it the attempts to justify imprisoning drug users because of health and well-being, protecting children, or reducing crime. Husak concludes, "If I am correct, prohibitionists are more clearly guilty of immorality than their opponents. The wrongfulness of recreational drug use, if it exists at all, pales against the immorality of punishing drug users." (p. 82)

Reasons to Decriminalize Drug Use. Husak's positive case for decriminalizing drug use begins with acknowledgement that drug use is or may be highly pleasurable. In addition, some drugs aid relaxation, others increase energy and some promote spiritual enlightenment or literary and artistic creativity. The simple fun and euphoria attendant to drug use should count for permitting it.

The fact that criminalization of drug use proves to be counter-productive provides Husak a set of final substantial reasons for decriminalizing use. Criminalizing drugs proves counter-productive along several different lines: 1) criminalization is aimed and selectively enforced against minorities, 2) public health risks increase because drugs are dealt on the street, 3) foreign policy is negatively affected by corrupt governments being supported solely because they support anti-drug policies, 4) a frank and open discussion about drug policy is impossible in the United States, 5) civil liberties are eroded by drug enforcement, 6) some government corruption stems from drug payoffs and 7) criminalization costs tens of billions of dollars per year.

Douglas Husak provides the conceptual clarity needed to work one's way through the various debates surrounding drug use and the law. He establishes a high threshold that must be met in order to justify the state's incarcerating someone. Having laid this groundwork Husak demonstrates that purported justifications for drug criminalization fail and that good reasons for decriminalizing drug use prevail. For persons who worry about what drug decriminalization means for children, Husak counsels that there is more to fear from prosecution and conviction of youth for using drugs than there is to fear from the drugs themselves.

Against Legalizing Drug Production and Distribution. Peter de Marneffe offers an argument against drug legalization . The argument itself is simple. If drugs are legalized, there will be more drug abuse. If there is more drug abuse that is bad. Drug abuse is sufficiently bad to justify making drug production and distribution illegal. Therefore, drugs should not be legalized. The weight of this argument is carried by the claim that the badness of drug abuse is sufficient to justify making drug production and sale illegal.

De Marneffe centers his argument on heroin. Heroin, he contends, is highly pleasurable but sharply depresses motivation to achieve worthwhile goals and meet responsibilities. Accordingly, children in an environment where heroin is legal will be subjected to neglect by heroin using parents and, if they themselves use heroin, they will be harmed by diminished motivation for achievement for the remainder of their lives. It is this later harm to the ambition and motivation of young people that, according to de Marneffe, justifies criminalizing heroin production and sale. As he puts it:

… the risk of lost opportunities that some individuals would bear as the result of heroin legalization justifies the risks of criminal liability and other burdens that heroin prohibition imposes on other individuals. The legalization of heroin would create a social environment -- call it the legalization environment -- in which some children would be at a substantially higher risk of irresponsible heroin abuse by their parents and in which some adolescents would be at a substantially higher risk of self-destructive heroin abuse. (p. 124)

Are the liberties of individual adult drug producers, distributors and users sacrificed? Yes, but this may be justified by de Marneffe's "burdens principle." According to the burdens principle, "the government violates a person's moral rights in adopting a policy that limits her liberty if and only if in adopting this policy the government imposes a burden on her that is substantially worse than the worst burden anyone would bear in the absence of this policy." (p. 159) According to this, de Marneffe claims that burdens on drug vendors or users may be justified by the prevention of harms to a particular individual or individuals. As he puts it:

What I claim in favor of heroin prohibition is that the reasons of at least one person to prefer her situation in a prohibition environment outweigh everyone else's reasons to prefer his or her situation in a legalization environment, assuming that the penalties are gradual and proportionate and other relevant conditions are met. (p. 161)

According to this view, the objective interest of a single adolescent in not losing ambition, motivation and drive justifies the imposition of burdens on other youth and adults who would prefer using drugs. Although Johnny might choose heroin use, his objective interest is for future motivation and ambition that is not harmed by heroin use.

De Marneffe's "burdens principle" seems to hold the whole society hostage to the objective liberty interests of one individual. Were this principle applied to drug producers or distributors who faced imprisonment it seems that imprisonment could not be justified. I suspect a concern for consistency here gives de Marneffe reason to make drug production and distribution illegal but without attaching harsh prison sentences for offenders. He advocates an environment where drugs are not legal, in order to protect youth against both abuse and their own choices that may cause them to become unmotivated, but recognizes that prison sentences are unjustified as a way to support such a system.

In The Legalization of Drugs the reader gets two interesting arguments. Douglas Husak makes a compelling case against punishing drug users. His position amounts to drug decriminalization with skepticism toward making drug production and sale illegal. On the other side, Peter de Marneffe justifies making drug production and sale illegal based upon the diminishment of future interests of young people. De Marneffe introduces a "burdens principle" which is likely much too strong a commitment to individual interests than could ever be realized in a civil society. In both instances, the reader is treated to arguments that effectively undermine current drug policy. The book provides philosophical argumentation that should stimulate a societal conversation about the justifiability of current drug laws.

The “Should Drugs Be Legalized?” Essay by Bennett Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Bennet argues that legalizing drugs, reducing their cost, and minimizing risks associated with underground drug manufacture will eventually lead to addiction. He backs his argument with a refutation of Friedman’s comparison of drugs to alcohol during the Prohibition Era. Bennet presents statistical data: after the alcohol ban was lifted, its consumption rose to 350 percent; a similar pattern would happen to drug use. Eventually, this jump would lead to more hospitalizations linked to overdoses and addiction.

Bennet rebuts the supposed positive effect of drug legalization on the crime rate in the US. He presents the argument that most crimes are committed before the criminal has started consuming drugs (Boström et al., 2019, p.12). He furthers his thought by claiming that although drugs do increase the probability of breaking the law, this pattern mainly applies to those involved in crime all along.

Bennett responds to Friedman’s argument on treating drug users rather than punishing them: he claims that people with addiction will not be able to get treated unless they want it. This could be considered a rebuttal rather than a refutation on Bennet’s part. The argumentation presented is subjective and is backed by Bennet’s political opinion. He provides the audience with an alternative view on the matter.

Bennett rebuts Friedman’s point that drug addicts only harm themselves, so drug legalization would be advantageous by showing casualties among children who fell victims to drug addicts under the influence. The point on possible dangers for pregnant women is also presented to show how urgent the issue is. Bennet claims that the legalization of drugs might lead to a modern form of slavery that would disable people from living good lives without an addiction clouding their judgment.

Boström, M., Micheletti, M., & Oosterveer, P. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press.

• Synthetic Marijuana: Physiological and Social Factors
• Drug Addiction in Teenagers: Smoking and Other Lifestyles
• Pill Testing Reducing Deaths and Hospitalizations
• Bennett News Model, Its Limitations and Challenges
• Postcolonialism in the Works of Basquiat and Gordon Bennett
• Drug Abuse Among Homeless Young Adults in New Jersey
• "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett
• Impaired Control and Alcohol Consumption
• America Anonymous: Eight Addicts in Search of a Life Review
• Drug Addiction Treatment for a Pregnant Woman
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, March 15). The "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-should-drugs-be-legalized-essay-by-bennett/

"The "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett." IvyPanda , 15 Mar. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-should-drugs-be-legalized-essay-by-bennett/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett'. 15 March.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett." March 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-should-drugs-be-legalized-essay-by-bennett/.

1. IvyPanda . "The "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett." March 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-should-drugs-be-legalized-essay-by-bennett/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett." March 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-should-drugs-be-legalized-essay-by-bennett/.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.335(7627); 2007 Nov 10

Head to Head

Should drugs be decriminalised no, joseph a califano, jr.

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6706, USA

Recent government figures suggest that the UK drug treatment programmes have had limited success in rehabilitating drug users, leading to calls for decriminalisation from some parties. Kailash Chand believes that this is the best way to reduce the harm drugs cause, but Joseph Califano thinks not

Drug misuse (usually called abuse in the United States) infects the world's criminal justice, health care, and social service systems. Although bans on the import, manufacture, sale, and possession of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin should remain, drug policies do need a fix. Neither legalisation nor decriminalisation is the answer. Rather, more resources and energy should be devoted to research, prevention, and treatment, and each citizen and institution should take responsibility to combat all substance misuse and addiction.

Vigorous and intelligent enforcement of criminal law makes drugs harder to get and more expensive. Sensible use of courts, punishment, and prisons can encourage misusers to enter treatment and thus reduce crime. Why not treat a teenager arrested for marijuana use in the same way that the United States treats someone arrested for drink-driving when no injury occurs? See the arrest as an opportunity and require the teenager to be screened, have any needed treatment, and attend sessions to learn about the dangers of marijuana use.

The medical profession and the public health community should educate society that addiction is a complex physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual disease, not a moral failing or easily abandoned act of self indulgence. Children should receive education and prevention programmes that take into account cultural and sex differences and are relevant to their age. We should make effective treatment available to all who need it and establish high standards of training for treatment providers. Social service programmes, such as those to help abused children and homeless people, should confront the drug and alcohol misuse and addiction commonly involved, rather than ignore or hide it because of the associated stigma.

Availability is the mother of use

What we don't need is legalisation or decriminalisation, which will make illegal drugs cheaper, easier to obtain, and more acceptable to use. The United States has some 60 million smokers, up to 20 million alcoholics and alcohol misusers, but only around six million illegal drug addicts. 1 If illegal drugs were easier to obtain, this figure would rise.

Switzerland's “needle park,” touted as a way to restrict a few hundred heroin users to a small area, turned into a grotesque tourist attraction of 20 000 addicts and had to be closed before it infected the entire city of Zurich. 2 Italy, where personal possession of a few doses of drugs like heroin has generally been exempt from criminal sanction, 2 has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in Europe, 3 with more than 60% of AIDS cases there attributable to intravenous drug use. 4

Most legalisation advocates say they would legalise drugs only for adults. Our experience with tobacco and alcohol shows that keeping drugs legal “for adults only” is an impossible dream. Teenage smoking and drinking are widespread in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe.

The Netherlands established “coffee shops,” where customers could select types of marijuana just as they might choose ice cream flavours. 2 Between 1984 and 1992, adolescent use nearly tripled. 2 Responding to international pressure and the outcry from its own citizens, the Dutch government reduced the number of marijuana shops and the amount that could be sold and raised the age for admission from 16 to 18. 2 5 In 2007, the Dutch government announced plans to ban the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms. 6

Restriction

Recent events in Britain highlight the importance of curbing availability. In 2005, the government extended the hours of operation for pubs, with some allowed to serve 24 hours a day. 7 Rather than curbing binge drinking, the result has been a sharp increase in crime between 3 am and 6 am, 8 in violent crimes in certain pubs, 9 and in emergency treatment for alcohol misusers. 7

Sweden offers an example of a successful restrictive drug policy. Faced with rising drug use in the 1990s, the government tightened drug control, stepped up police action, mounted a national action plan, and created a national drug coordinator. 10 The result: “Drug use is just a third of the European average.” 11

Almost daily we learn more about marijuana's addictive and dangerous characteristics. Today's teenagers' pot is far more potent than their parents' pot. The average amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in seized samples in the United States has more than doubled since 1983. 12 Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), has warned, “Today, the harmful characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin.” 13

Evidence that cannabis use can cause serious mental illness is mounting. 13 A study published in the Lancet “found a consistent increase in incidence of psychosis outcomes in people who had used cannabis.” 14 The study prompted the journal's editors to retract their 1995 statement that, “smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.” 15

Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous. A child who reaches age 21 without smoking, misusing alcohol, or using illegal drugs is virtually certain to never do so. 16 Today, most children don't use illicit drugs, but all of them, particularly the poorest, are vulnerable to misuse and addiction. Legalisation and decriminalisation—policies certain to increase illegal drug availability and use among our children—hardly qualify as public health approaches.

Competing interests: None declared.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use

With a growing number of states authorizing the use of marijuana, the public continues to broadly favor legalization of the drug for medical and recreational purposes. 

An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say either that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use by adults (59%) or that it should be legal for medical use only (30%). Just one-in-ten (10%) say marijuana use should not be legal, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Oct. 10-16, 2022. These views are virtually unchanged since April 2021.

The new survey follows President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon people convicted of marijuana possession at the federal level and direct his administration to review how marijuana is classified under federal law. It was fielded before the Nov. 8 midterm elections, when two states legalized the use of marijuana for recreational purposes – joining 19 states and the District of Columbia , which had already done so.

Pew Research Center asked this question to track public views about the legal status of marijuana. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,098 adults from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Over the long term, there has been a steep rise in public support for marijuana legalization, as measured by a separate Gallup survey question that asks whether the use of marijuana should be made legal – without specifying whether it would be legalized for recreational or medical use. This year, 68% of adults say marijuana should be legal , matching the record-high support for legalization Gallup found in 2021.

There continue to be sizable age and partisan differences in Americans’ views about marijuana. While very small shares of adults of any age are completely opposed to the legalization of the drug, older adults are far less likely than younger ones to favor legalizing it for recreational purposes.

This is particularly the case among those ages 75 and older, just three-in-ten of whom say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use. Larger shares in every other age group – including 53% of those ages 65 to 74 – say the drug should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

Republicans are more wary than Democrats about legalizing marijuana for recreational use: 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use, while an additional 39% say it should only be legal for medical use. By comparison, 73% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use; an additional 21% say it should be legal for medical use only.

Ideological differences are evident within each party. About four-in-ten conservative Republicans (37%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with a 60% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans.

Nearly two-thirds of conservative and moderate Democrats (63%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use. An overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say the same.

There also are racial and ethnic differences in views of legalizing marijuana. Roughly two-thirds of Black adults (68%) and six-in-ten White adults say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with smaller shares of Hispanic (49%) and Asian adults (48%).

Related: Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

In both parties, views of marijuana legalization vary by age

While Republicans and Democrats differ greatly on whether marijuana should be legal for medial and recreational use, there are also age divides within each party.

A 62% majority of Republicans ages 18 to 29 favor making marijuana legal for medical and recreational use, compared with 52% of those ages 30 to 49. Roughly four-in-ten Republicans ages 50 to 64 (41%) and 65 to 74 (38%) say marijuana should be legal for both purposes, as do 18% of those 75 and older.

Still, wide majorities of Republicans in all age groups favor legalizing marijuana for medical use. Even among Republicans 65 and older, just 17% say marijuana use should not be legal even for medical purposes.

While majorities of Democrats across all age groups support legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, older Democrats are less likely to say this. About half of Democrats ages 75 and older (51%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational purposes; larger shares of younger Democrats say the same. Still, only 8% of Democrats 75 and older think marijuana should not be legalized even for medical use – similar to the share of all other Democrats who say this.

Note: Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

• Drug Policy
• Medicine & Health

Ted Van Green is a research analyst focusing on U.S. politics and policy at Pew Research Center .

9 facts about Americans and marijuana

Most americans favor legalizing marijuana for medical, recreational use, most americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county, clear majorities of black americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties, concern about drug addiction has declined in u.s., even in areas where fatal overdoses have risen the most, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Against the legalization of drugs, additional details, no download available, availability, related topics.

• Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Health and Engineering
• Epidemiology
• Health Policy and Management
• Health, Behavior and Society
• International Health
• Mental Health
• Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
• Population, Family and Reproductive Health
• Program Finder
• Admissions Services
• Course Directory
• Academic Calendar
• Hybrid Campus
• Lecture Series
• Convocation
• Strategy and Development
• Implementation and Impact
• Integrity and Oversight
• In the School
• In the Field
• In Baltimore
• Resources for Practitioners
• Articles & News Releases
• In The News
• Statements & Announcements
• At a Glance
• Student Life
• Strategic Priorities
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
• What is Public Health?

The Evidence—and Lack Thereof—About Cannabis

Research is still needed on cannabis’s risks and benefits. 

Lindsay Smith Rogers

Although the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law, medicinal and recreational cannabis use has become increasingly widespread.

Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical cannabis, while 23 states and D.C. have legalized recreational use. Cannabis legalization has benefits, such as removing the product from the illegal market so it can be taxed and regulated, but science is still trying to catch up as social norms evolve and different products become available. 

In this Q&A, adapted from the August 25 episode of Public Health On Call , Lindsay Smith Rogers talks with Johannes Thrul, PhD, MS , associate professor of Mental Health , about cannabis as medicine, potential risks involved with its use, and what research is showing about its safety and efficacy. 

Do you think medicinal cannabis paved the way for legalization of recreational use?

The momentum has been clear for a few years now. California was the first to legalize it for medical reasons [in 1996]. Washington and Colorado were the first states to legalize recreational use back in 2012. You see one state after another changing their laws, and over time, you see a change in social norms. It's clear from the national surveys that people are becoming more and more in favor of cannabis legalization. That started with medical use, and has now continued into recreational use.

But there is a murky differentiation between medical and recreational cannabis. I think a lot of people are using cannabis to self-medicate. It's not like a medication you get prescribed for a very narrow symptom or a specific disease. Anyone with a medical cannabis prescription, or who meets the age limit for recreational cannabis, can purchase it. Then what they use it for is really all over the place—maybe because it makes them feel good, or because it helps them deal with certain symptoms, diseases, and disorders.

Does cannabis have viable medicinal uses?

The evidence is mixed at this point. There hasn’t been a lot of funding going into testing cannabis in a rigorous way. There is more evidence for certain indications than for others, like CBD for seizures—one of the first indications that cannabis was approved for. And THC has been used effectively for things like nausea and appetite for people with cancer.

There are other indications where the evidence is a lot more mixed. For example, pain—one of the main reasons that people report for using cannabis. When we talk to patients, they say cannabis improved their quality of life. In the big studies that have been done so far, there are some indications from animal models that cannabis might help [with pain]. When we look at human studies, it's very much a mixed bag. 

And, when we say cannabis, in a way it's a misnomer because cannabis is so many things. We have different cannabinoids and different concentrations of different cannabinoids. The main cannabinoids that are being studied are THC and CBD, but there are dozens of other minor cannabinoids and terpenes in cannabis products, all of varying concentrations. And then you also have a lot of different routes of administration available. You can smoke, vape, take edibles, use tinctures and topicals. When you think about the explosion of all of the different combinations of different products and different routes of administration, it tells you how complicated it gets to study this in a rigorous way. You almost need a randomized trial for every single one of those and then for every single indication.

What do we know about the risks of marijuana use?  

Cannabis use disorder is a legitimate disorder in the DSM. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who develop a problematic use of cannabis. We know there are risks for mental health consequences. The evidence is probably the strongest that if you have a family history of psychosis or schizophrenia, using cannabis early in adolescence is not the best idea. We know cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms and potentially longer lasting problems with psychosis and schizophrenia. 

It is hard to study, because you also don't know if people are medicating early negative symptoms of schizophrenia. They wouldn't necessarily have a diagnosis yet, but maybe cannabis helps them to deal with negative symptoms, and then they develop psychosis. There is also some evidence that there could be something going on with the impact of cannabis on the developing brain that could prime you to be at greater risk of using other substances later down the road, or finding the use of other substances more reinforcing. 

What benefits do you see to legalization?

When we look at the public health landscape and the effect of legislation, in this case legalization, one of the big benefits is taking cannabis out of the underground illegal market. Taking cannabis out of that particular space is a great idea. You're taking it out of the illegal market and giving it to legitimate businesses where there is going to be oversight and testing of products, so you know what you're getting. And these products undergo quality control and are labeled. Those labels so far are a bit variable, but at least we're getting there. If you're picking up cannabis at the street corner, you have no idea what's in it. 

And we know that drug laws in general have been used to criminalize communities of color and minorities. Legalizing cannabis [can help] reduce the overpolicing of these populations.

What big questions about cannabis would you most like to see answered?

We know there are certain, most-often-mentioned conditions that people are already using medical cannabis for: pain, insomnia, anxiety, and PTSD. We really need to improve the evidence base for those. I think clinical trials for different cannabis products for those conditions are warranted.

Another question is, now that the states are getting more tax revenue from cannabis sales, what are they doing with that money? If you look at tobacco legislation, for example, certain states have required that those funds get used for research on those particular issues. To me, that would be a very good use of the tax revenue that is now coming in. We know, for example, that there’s a lot more tax revenue now that Maryland has legalized recreational use. Maryland could really step up here and help provide some of that evidence.

Are there studies looking into the risks you mentioned?

Large national studies are done every year or every other year to collect data, so we already have a pretty good sense of the prevalence of cannabis use disorder. Obviously, we'll keep tracking that to see if those numbers increase, for example, in states that are legalizing. But, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see an uptick in cannabis use disorder a month after legalization. The evidence from states that have legalized it has not demonstrated that we might all of a sudden see an increase in psychosis or in cannabis use disorder. This happens slowly over time with a change in social norms and availability, and potentially also with a change in marketing. And, with increasing use of an addictive substance, you will see over time a potential increase in problematic use and then also an increase in use disorder.

If you're interested in seeing if cannabis is right for you, is this something you can talk to your doctor about?

I think your mileage may vary there with how much your doctor is comfortable and knows about it. It's still relatively fringe. That will very much depend on who you talk to. But I think as providers and professionals, everybody needs to learn more about this, because patients are going to ask no matter what.

Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast , an editor for Expert Insights , and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Could Medical Marijuana Help Address the Opioid Epidemic?

Policy Is Public Health

Medical Marijuana Laws Linked to Health and Labor Supply Benefits in Older Adults

Related Content

New Center Provides Resources for HIV-Related Stigma Research

U.S. Global Mental Health Alliance Hosts Congressional Briefing

More Than One-Third of Adults with Medical Debt and Depression or Anxiety Delayed Mental Health Care in Previous 12 Months

Why Do Prescription Drugs Have Such Crazy Names?

The Problem with Pulse Oximeters: A Long History of Racial Bias

Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Students are often asked to write an essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Introduction.

Drugs are substances that can change the way your body and mind work. Some people think drugs should be legal, but there are many reasons why this is not a good idea.

Health Risks

Drugs are harmful to your body. They can damage your brain, heart, and other important organs. If drugs become legal, more people might use them and get sick or even die.

Drugs can make you addicted. This means you can’t stop using them, even if you want to. If drugs are legal, more people could become addicted and their lives could be ruined.

Drugs often lead to crime. People who use drugs might steal to pay for them. If drugs are legal, crime might increase.

In conclusion, drugs should not be legal because they are harmful to your health, can make you addicted, lead to crime, and hurt society. It’s important to say no to drugs.

250 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Drugs should not be legalized due to many reasons. These include health issues, addiction, crime, and social problems. Let’s discuss these points in detail.

Health Problems

Drugs are harmful to our bodies. They can damage the brain, heart, and other important organs. Overdose can even cause death. If drugs become legal, more people might start using them, leading to more health problems.

Drugs are addictive. They make you want more and more, even if you know they are bad for you. This can make it hard for people to stop using drugs, even if they want to. Legalizing drugs could lead to more people becoming addicted.

Drugs often lead to crime. People who use drugs might steal to get money to buy more drugs. They might also get involved in violence. If drugs are legal, these crimes could increase.

Social Problems

In conclusion, drugs should not be legalized. They cause health problems, addiction, crime, and social problems. It’s important to keep drugs illegal to protect our health and society.

500 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Drugs can be harmful and dangerous. They can hurt our bodies and minds, and can even lead to death. Some people think that making drugs legal would solve many problems, but this isn’t a good idea. Here’s why.

The Risk to Health

Addiction problems.

Drugs can make people addicted. This means they can’t stop using drugs, even when they want to. Addiction can ruin people’s lives. They might lose their jobs, their families, and their homes. If drugs were legal, more people might get addicted. This would be a big problem for our society.

Effect on Society

Drugs can also harm our society. People who use drugs can cause problems for others. They might commit crimes, like stealing, to get money for drugs. They might also hurt other people, or forget to take care of their children. If drugs were legal, these problems could get worse.

Increased Drug Use

In conclusion, drugs should not be legal. They are bad for our health, can cause addiction, harm our society, and could lead to more people using drugs. Instead of making drugs legal, we should focus on helping people who are addicted to drugs. We should also teach young people about the dangers of drugs, so they can make good choices. This is the best way to protect our society and keep everyone healthy and safe.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• The Crisis of Drug Addiction Words: 950
• Legalization of Marijuana and Other Illegal Drugs Words: 3031
• Drug Dealing on College Campuses Words: 2495
• Drugs and Drug Related Crimes Words: 1386
• Drug Addiction among Nurses Words: 1305
• Criminalizing Drug Usage: Effects and Consequences Words: 2807
• How Drugs Influence the Crimes Words: 912
• Drug Addiction: Advantages and Disadvantages Words: 2258
• Support for the Legalization of the Drug Consumption Words: 398
• Miami Drug Wars of the 70s and 80s Words: 3554
• War on Drugs: Causes and Problems Words: 880
• Drug Prescription Issues and Abuse Words: 1447

“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett

The war against drugs in the United States has reached a new level. Such an outcome is conditional upon the recent measures that politicians are discussing. More specifically, they are related to the emergence of an idea to legalize drug consumption in order to decrease the number of drug addicts in the long run. Moreover, this measure would allow the government to combat drug pushers by offering the product, which is cheaper, safer, and, what is more important, legal. This initiative is still under consideration and finds both supporters and opponents. The problem is that no one can predict the results of passing the drug law. European countries’ experience with such policies does not guarantee the similarity between the processes in different countries. Therefore, anti-drug activists such as William Bennett present their views on the matter. In his article, “Should drugs be legalized?” Bennett provides a series of arguments against the drug law and thereby highlights the controversy of the attempts to pass it.

The first and second arguments that he considers are politicians’ beliefs that the legalization of drugs will take the profits out of the industry and eliminate the black market. However, it is not as simple as it seems, and Bennett rebuts this idea by proving its inconsistency and providing an alternative view on the issue. From his perspective, selling drugs in regular shops will not harm the business of pushers, as they will keep producing some dangerous types of them, which the government will never produce. Hence, the black market will prosper, and the illegality of drugs it offers can even increase their attractiveness for addicts. As for the government, the only achievement, in this case, will be sharing “the drug profits now garnered by criminals.” It allows concluding that the opponents of drug legalization merely do not wish to see the government becoming an official drug dealer. Nevertheless, such a course of events will be impossible to turn once the law is passed, and the government will have to keep up with the competition on the market.

The third argument that Bennett refutes is the positive impact of drug legalization on the United States’ crime rate. He proves it wrong by presenting the fact that most crimes committed by criminals with drug addiction took place before they started taking them. Indeed, drugs can enhance the probability of such felonies but only for the people who were previously involved in similar activities. According to Bennett, over the time he spent traveling throughout the country, he did not see any signs of the probability that “lower drug prices would reduce crime.” In most cases, especially when children are involved, there is no connection between the price and the crime rate. Therefore, the argument of supporters of drug legalization has proved to be inconsistent in terms of reducing crime rates. In this case, Bennett only refutes the statement but does not provide an alternative perspective. It might be connected to the fact that there is no link between the two measurements, which are drug prices and crime rates.

The fourth argument that drug legalization is the best method since addicts harm only themselves contradicts the information presented in the third argument. Hence, Bennett rebuts it by outlining the cases of casualties among children related to drug addicts or people who happened to meet them when they could not control themselves. Moreover, the author cites the statement of a former cocaine addict, thereby complementing the views of politicians and their supporters on drug legalization by the opinion of a person with real experience in the sphere. According to him, one cannot fully understand what it feels like to be totally irresponsible for any actions and “borrowing money from people you know you cannot pay back.” In this way, the author of the article provides an alternative view using the words of a former drug addict. In the end, he expresses the idea that drug legalization would turn into modern slavery rather than help people live their lives to the fullest.

The article written by William Bennett is extremely useful as it combines the concerns of opponents of drug legalization and offers its supporters to resolve such issues before passing the law. Out of the four arguments presented by the author, three were rebutted, and only one refuted. Hence, he allows the reader to see the other side of the coin by expanding the awareness of citizens about the consequences of drug legalization. In short, the involvement of the government does not make its policy efficient but turns it into one of the competitors on the drug market, and this decision will not eliminate black markets. Moreover, the choice of drug consumption or refusal from it cannot be the sole responsibility of a person as he or she affects many other people, especially children. As for the refuted argument, there is no correlation between crime rates and drug addiction, and this issue requires further consideration.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, February 17). “Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/

"“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." StudyCorgi , 17 Feb. 2022, studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett'. 17 February.

1. StudyCorgi . "“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." February 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." February 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." February 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

This paper, ““Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: February 17, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The most convincing argument for legalizing LSD, shrooms, and other psychedelics

by German Lopez

I have a profound fear of death. It’s not bad enough to cause serious depression or anxiety. But it is bad enough to make me avoid thinking about the possibility of dying — to avoid a mini existential crisis in my mind.

But it turns out there may be a better cure for this fear than simply not thinking about it. It’s not yoga, a new therapy program, or a medicine currently on the (legal) market. It’s psychedelic drugs — LSD, ibogaine, and psilocybin, which is found in magic mushrooms.

This is the case for legalizing hallucinogens. Although the drugs have gotten some media attention in recent years for helping cancer patients deal with their fear of death and helping people quit smoking, there’s also a similar potential boon for the nonmedical, even recreational psychedelic user. As hallucinogens get a renewed look by researchers, they’re finding that the substances may improve almost anyone’s mood and quality of life — as long as they’re taken in the right setting, typically a controlled environment.

This isn’t something that even drug policy reformers are comfortable calling for yet. “There’s not any political momentum for that right now,” Jag Davies, who focuses on hallucinogen research at the Drug Policy Alliance, said, citing the general public’s views of psychedelics as extremely dangerous — close to drugs like crack cocaine, heroin, and meth.

But it’s an idea that experts and researchers are taking more seriously. And while the studies are new and ongoing, and a national regulatory model for legal hallucinogens is practically nonexistent, the available research is very promising — enough to reconsider the demonization and prohibition of these potentially amazing drugs.

Hallucinogens’ potentially huge benefit: ego death

Mushroom, mushroom.

The most remarkable potential benefit of hallucinogens is what’s called “ego death,” an experience in which people lose their sense of self-identity and, as a result, are able to detach themselves from worldly concerns like a fear of death, addiction, and anxiety over temporary — perhaps exaggerated — life events.

When people take a potent dose of a psychedelic, they can experience spiritual, hallucinogenic trips that can make them feel like they’re transcending their own bodies and even time and space. This, in turn, gives people a lot of perspective — if they can see themselves as a small part of a much broader universe, it’s a lot easier for them to discard personal, relatively insignificant and inconsequential concerns about their own lives and death.

That may sound like pseudoscience. And the research on hallucinogens is so early that scientists don’t fully grasp how it works. But it’s a concept that’s been found in some medical trials, and something that many people who’ve tried hallucinogens can vouch for experiencing. It’s one of the reasons why preliminary , small studies and research from the 1950s and ‘60s found hallucinogens can treat — and maybe cure — addiction, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Charles Grob, a UCLA professor of psychiatry and pediatrics who studies psychedelics, conducted a study that gave psilocybin to late-stage cancer patients. “The reports I got back from the subjects, from their partners, from their families were very positive — that the experience was of great value, and it helped them regain a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning to their life,” he told me in 2014. “The quality of their lives notably improved.”

In a fantastic look at the research, Michael Pollan at the New Yorker captured the phenomenon through the stories of cancer patients who participated in hallucinogen trials:

Death looms large in the journeys taken by the cancer patients. A woman I’ll call Deborah Ames, a breast-cancer survivor in her sixties (she asked not to be identified), described zipping through space as if in a video game until she arrived at the wall of a crematorium and realized, with a fright, “I’ve died and now I’m going to be cremated. The next thing I know, I’m below the ground in this gorgeous forest, deep woods, loamy and brown. There are roots all around me and I’m seeing the trees growing, and I’m part of them. It didn’t feel sad or happy, just natural, contented, peaceful. I wasn’t gone. I was part of the earth.” Several patients described edging up to the precipice of death and looking over to the other side. Tammy Burgess, given a diagnosis of ovarian cancer at fifty-five, found herself gazing across “the great plain of consciousness. It was very serene and beautiful. I felt alone but I could reach out and touch anyone I’d ever known. When my time came, that’s where my life would go once it left me and that was O.K.”

But Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at New York University’s Marron Institute, noted that these benefits don’t apply only to terminally ill patients. The studies conducted so far have found benefits that apply to anyone : a reduced fear of death, greater psychological openness, and increased life satisfaction.

“It’s not required to have a disease to be afraid of dying,” Kleiman said. “But it’s probably an undesirable condition if you have the alternative available. And there’s now some evidence that these experiences can make the person less afraid to die.”

Kleiman added, “The obvious application is people who are currently dying with a terminal diagnosis. But being born is a terminal diagnosis. And people’s lives might be better if they live out of the valley of the shadow of death.”

Again, the current research on all of this is early, with much of the science still relying on studies from the ‘50s and ‘60s. But the most recent preliminary findings are promising enough that experts like Kleiman are cautiously considering how to build a model that would let people take these potentially beneficial drugs legally — while also acknowledging that psychedelics do pose some big risks.

The two big risks of hallucinogens: accidents and bad trips

Charles Grob, a UCLA professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, is leading the way in psychedelic research.

Hallucinogens aren’t perfectly safe, but they’re not dangerous in the way some people might think. As Grob previously told me , there’s little to no chance that someone will become addicted to psychedelics — they’re not physically addictive like heroin or tobacco, and the experiences are so demanding and draining that a great majority of people simply won’t be interested in constantly taking the drugs. He also said that hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, which can cause the disturbances widely known as “flashbacks,” is “uncommon, but you will see it, particularly among someone who has taken hallucinogens a lot.”

Kleiman drew a comparison to marijuana to explain the risks. “The risk with cannabis is, primarily, that you lose control of your cannabis taking,” he said. “The risk with LSD is primarily that you’ll do something stupid to ruin the experience, or you’ll have such a scary experience that it’ll leave you damaged. But those are safety risks rather than addiction risks.”

This gets to the two major dangers of hallucinogens: accidents and bad trips. The first risk is similar to what you’d expect from other drugs: When people are intoxicated in any way, they’re more prone to doing bad, dumb things. As Kleiman explained, “People take LSD and think they can fly and jump off buildings. It’s true that it’s a drug warrior fairy tale, but it’s also true in that it actually happens. People drop acid and run out in traffic. People do stupid shit under high doses of psychedelics.”

Bad trips are also a concern. A bad psychedelic experience can result in psychotic episodes, a lost sense of reality, and even long-term psychological trauma in very rare situations, especially among people using other drugs or with a history of mental health issues. Just like psychedelics can lead to long-term psychological benefits, they can lead to long-term psychological pain.

These risks are why not many people are seriously discussing legalizing hallucinogens in the same way the US allows alcohol or is now beginning to allow marijuana. But the potential benefits of hallucinogens are leading some experts to consider how these drugs could be legalized in some capacity.

“I think it’s a bad idea to treat hallucinogens like we treat cocaine or cannabis,” Kleiman said. “They pose different risks and offer different benefits.” He added, “But I don’t think we’re ever going to free these substances from careful legal control.”

How hallucinogens can be legalized

Drop some LSD — but maybe only in a controlled environment.

So how can you maximize the benefits and minimize the risks? The most convincing idea so far is letting people take psychedelics in a controlled setting, in which multiple participants can be watched over by trained supervisors who ensure the experience doesn’t go poorly.

So far, this is what the medical side has focused on: The typical medical trial involves doctors watching over a deathly ill patient or someone dealing with addiction who takes psilocybin. But if the concept is expanded to allow nonmedical users, then perhaps professionals who aren’t doctors but are trained in guiding someone through a trip could take up the role. “I imagine someone who has training in managing that experience, and a license, and liability insurance, and a facility,” Kleiman said.

Here’s how it would work: A psychedelic user would go through some sort of preparation period to make sure she knows what she’s getting into. Then she could make an appointment at a place offering these services. She would show up at this appointment, take the drug of her choice (or whatever the facility provides), and wait to allow it to kick in. As the trip occurs, a supervisor would watch over the user — not being too pushy, but making sure he’s available to guide her through any rough spots. In some studies, doctors have also prepared certain activities — a soundtrack or food, for example — that may help set the right mood and setting for someone on psychedelics. Different places will likely experiment with different approaches, including how many people can participate at once and how a room should look.

The most convincing idea so far is letting people take psychedelics in a controlled setting

Kleiman also envisions a potential system in which people can eventually graduate to using the drug solo. “It’s like Red Cross water safety instruction,” he said. “You start out, you’re a newbie. You don’t go into the pool without a trained, certified person to watch you, guide you, and keep you safe. After a while, your teacher gives you a test to certify that you’re safe to be in the water alone. And you might even get certified to become a trainer, so you can guide newbies yourself.”

If pulled off correctly, this would maximize the best possible outcomes and minimize the worst. Supervisors could help prevent accidents, and they could walk people through good and bad trips, letting users relax and get something meaningful out of the experience.

There are risks to the controlled setting. If a supervisor is poorly trained or malicious, it could lead to a horrific trip that could actually worsen someone’s mental state. This is why regulation and licensing will be crucial to getting the idea right.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, argued for a looser model that could, for example, allow psychedelics to be sold over the counter. “You dramatically decrease the black market. So long as you have people who have to go through some sort of gatekeeper, or who can be denied, you’re going to continue to have a black market,” Nadelmann said. “Secondly, this means the percent of consumers who got a product of known potency and purity from a reliable source would increase.”

But the black market demand for psychedelics is very small, with only 0.5 percent of Americans 12 and older in 2013 saying they used hallucinogens in the past month. So allowing over-the-counter sales would likely have a tiny benefit at best on public health and criminal groups’ profits from the black market.

The debate about which model works best will likely go on for some time, especially if different places test different approaches. There’s no doubt it will be tricky to hash out exactly how to legalize and regulate these drugs, as some states are learning with marijuana .

But if we know the benefits to public health and well-being are real, it’s irresponsible to let the potential go untapped. It may soon be time for America to seriously consider legalizing LSD, magic mushrooms, and other psychedelic drugs.

• Health Care

Most Popular

• Why I changed my mind about volunteering
• Why Democrats aren’t talking much about one of their biggest issues
• The staggering death toll of scientific lies
• The huge stakes in the Supreme Court’s new abortion case
• Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Explainers

The singer’s new album, Short n’ Sweet, is full of the sexy clown wordplay she’s known for.

Canadian railways locked out union workers Thursday after months of contract disputes.

The weirdest 2024 candidate endorsed Trump.

Pumpkin spice is America’s most hatable seasonal flavor. But Starbucks is leaning in even more heavily this year.

India has systemic problems with sexual violence.

The truth behind the ongoing controversy over the highly memeable dancer.