At the turn of the century, many drugs were declared illegal as a temperance climate gripped the nation. In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which banned opiates and cocaine. Alcohol prohibition soon followed, and by 1918 the United States was officially a “dry” nation. However, this did not mean the end of drug use. This meant that all of a sudden, people were arrested and imprisoned for doing what they had done before without government interference. Prohibition also meant the creation of a criminal-run black market marked by violence. For the proposed legalization of drugs to have a much-vaunted positive impact on crime rates, these drugs would have to be both cheap and readily available. Legalizers assume that there is a natural limit to the demand for these drugs and that if their use were legalized, the demand would not increase significantly. These mentally unstable individuals who currently use drugs would continue to do so, eliminating the need to commit crimes, while psychologically more stable people (like you and me and our children) would not be tempted to use drugs by their new legal status and fairness. But price and availability, I do not need to say, have a profound influence on consumption: the cheaper alcohol becomes, for example, the more it is consumed, at least within wide limits. The legalization of drugs could lead to a desperate need for rehabilitation centers, which could be disastrous for our economy, even without taking into account the human damage in the form of lives lost and endless addiction problems. In addition, the doors would be open to individuals over the age of 18 who may abuse heroin, fentanyl, crystal methamphetamine and pharmaceuticals. There would be no reason to control opioids, benzodiazepines, stimulants or other medications if drugs such as heroin were readily available.
What to do with pharmacists? Maybe doctors would recommend medication, and patients would buy what they want instead of what they need. The argument that some drugs act as gateway drugs is controversial and the truth is probably complex. Vor dem 20. In the nineteenth century, drugs were generally unregulated and even states were officially engaged in drug trafficking (see, for example, the opium wars between Britain and China). While the alternative of legalization usually emerges when fear of drugs and public despair of existing policies are at their peak, it never seems to disappear from the media radar screen for long. Periodic incidents — such as the heroine-induced death of a wealthy young couple in New York City in 1995, or then-surgeon general Jocelyn Elders` remark in 1993 that legalization could be beneficial and should be investigated — guarantee this. The importance of many advocates of legalization at different times, such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, and George Shultz, also helps.
But every time the issue of legalization is raised, the same arguments for and against are dusted off and trampled on, so we don`t have a clearer understanding of what it might entail and what the implications might be. The legalization of drugs cannot therefore be supported by philosophical principles. But if the pragmatic argument for legalization were strong enough, it could outweigh other objections. On this argument, proponents of legalization rely on most of their arguments. That climbing is not just a myth can be demonstrated with animal experiments. Interestingly, rats in the experimental facilities tended to increase their drug use over time for all drugs except nicotine and alcohol. This could support an argument for treating nicotine and alcohol differently in our societies compared to other drugs such as opiates and cocaine. Legalization would free up billions of dollars the government is currently spending on police, courts, and corrections to wage the war on drugs, and generate significant tax revenue.
The money saved could then be spent on drug education, addiction treatment and enforcement initiatives targeting more serious crimes. So there could be an argument that illegal drugs and drug law enforcement can prevent drug cartels from expanding their influence on society. But there are examples of other places (Portugal is often mentioned in this context [8]) where the liberalisation of drug legislation seems to have worked better. The effects of liberalization are therefore likely to be a complex issue that makes forecasting difficult. Photo by Edgar Laureano on Unsplash Productivity: The use of certain drugs impairs clarity of mind or makes the user lethargic, tired, unmotivated and unwilling or unable to participate in normal daily activities, especially those that require long-term attention and mental focus. This reduction in human productivity can be called a bad thing morally. Human society is based on the principle that everyone must contribute according to their abilities and that each person must keep their share of the market so that everyone is well. It can be said that drug addicts benefit from society and its infrastructure without contributing as much as possible if they do not use drugs. This can be called morally reprehensible, in the same way that withholding taxes are morally reprehensible. [6] www.dw.com/en/netherlands-the-possible-consequences-of-liberal-drugs-policies/a-51474578 Third, the rate of criminal activity among addicts receiving methadone from the clinic, while reduced, remains very high.
The deputy director of the clinic estimates that the number of crimes committed by his average patient (after self-disclosure) was 250 per year before entering treatment and 50 after. It may well be that the actual difference is much smaller because patients are encouraged to do too much to ensure the survival of their methadone. But it is clear that opiate addicts who receive their drugs legally and for free continue to commit a large number of crimes. In my prison clinics, I see many prisoners who have taken methadone when they have committed the crime for which they are imprisoned. Even the legalizers` argument that allowing the purchase and consumption of drugs as freely as Milton Friedman suggests will necessarily lead to less government and other government interference in our lives does not hold water. On the contrary, if the use of narcotic drugs and stimulants were to become virtually universal, which is by no means impossible, the number of situations in which, for reasons of public safety, mandatory checks on persons would have to be carried out would increase enormously. Pharmacies, banks, schools, hospitals – in fact, all organizations that deal with the public – may feel compelled to check their employees` drug use regularly and randomly. The widespread use of these drugs would increase the legal status of countless public and private bodies to interfere in our lives; And the freedom of interference would be far from having increased, but would have decreased considerably. The well-being of society: Each of us is obliged to do everything possible for the interests of society by being a good citizen, a good neighbour and friend, and a good family member who benefits others. Some drugs are known to cause violent behavior, lower other inhibitions, cause further disorientation, or interfere with the proper functioning of these social roles. This argument would, of course, also apply to alcohol and tobacco, the consumption of which is sometimes contrary to the good of society. Drunk football “enthusiasts” who violently attack other team`s fans during a World Cup match, or drunk drivers who endanger the lives of others, are no better than any violent heroin addict from this point of view.
Yet it could reasonably be argued that society can expect us to behave as well as possible, as we also benefit from it at every moment of our lives. In the current situation, a drug user not only runs the risk of behaving in an anti-social manner, but also actively supports criminal organisations and global drug trafficking, which is morally reprehensible. Another aspect of the escalation argument is the escalation towards different drugs and not just the increase in the amount consumed. This is what we hear when some milder drugs are called “gateway drugs.” Taking these drugs acts as a “gateway” to harder drugs. The concept of gateway drugs provides a reason to regulate or prohibit drugs that, by themselves, do not pose a significant risk to their users (such as marijuana).
Sed non elit aliquam, tempor nisl vitae, euismod quam. Nulla et lacus lectus. Nunc sed tincidunt arcu. Nam maximus luctus nunc, in ullamcorper turpis luctus ac. Morbi a leo ut metus mollis facilisis. Integer feugiat dictum dolor id egestas. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus.
