Easing the availability of psychoactive substances that are not already commercially available, opponents generally argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial increase in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin and cocaine addiction in various countries prior to the entry into force of international controls, the increase in alcohol consumption following the repeal of the Volstead Act in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among health professionals with better access to prescription drugs. Without explaining the basis of their calculations, some have predicted a dramatic increase in the number of people who use drugs and become addicted. These increases would result in significant direct and indirect costs to society, including increased public health spending as a result of overdoses, foetal malformations and other drug-related accidents such as car accidents; loss of productivity due to absenteeism and accidents at work; and more drug-induced violence, child abuse and other crimes, not to mention school unrest. The most obvious case is the regulation of adolescents` and young adults` access to drugs. Whatever the regime, it is hard to imagine that the drugs that are now banned would be more readily available than alcohol and tobacco today. Would there be a black market for drugs for youth, or would the regulatory system be as permeable as the current one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to both questions would reduce the appeal of legalization. It is true that we know from many ancient societies that they used drugs for medicinal and ritual purposes, but also for leisure and pleasure 7. From the ancient Greeks to Sigmund Freud`s cocaine use, the history of human societies has always been a history of drugs. Different countries have had different experiences with attempts to decriminalize or legalize recreational drugs.

For example, while Portugal decriminalised all possession and use of personal drugs in 2001 and experienced a decrease in drug use, the Netherlands has seen an increase in drug tourism from neighbouring countries and an increase in drug-related crime. Ending the misery caused by drug trafficking requires full legalization – legalizing the production, transportation and sale of currently illegal drugs – not just decriminalization. The biggest obstacle to reform is uncertainty about how a legal market works. Permitted locations: Vendors are allowed to sell locally consumed drugs, as well as alcohol bars and cannabis coffee shops in the Netherlands. This is understandable: different drugs carry different risks, and the potential for serious harm from marijuana is lower than for cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine. Marijuana, for example, does not seem capable of causing a fatal overdose, but cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine can kill if taken in excess or under the wrong circumstances. None of this should deter further analysis of drug legalization. In particular, a rigorous assessment of a set of hypothetical regulatory regimes against a common set of variables would clarify their potential costs, benefits and trade-offs.

In addition to the rigour required in any future discussion of the alternative to legalization, such an analysis could foster the same level of scrutiny of current drug control programs and policies. With the situation deteriorating in the United States and abroad, there is no better time for a fundamental reassessment of whether our current responses to this problem are sufficient to meet the likely challenges. In general, it is very difficult to say what “harmful” means in relation to drug use. Many drugs (including alcohol and marijuana) cause disorientation and often changes in behavior. Some of these changes can be harmful while driving, for example, but harmless when sitting on a couch with friends. None of the illicit drugs are biologically less attractive than alcohol or tobacco. The reason so many Americans use these two drugs is that they are legal for adults and widely used and supported by established industries. The legalization of marijuana ensures that the percentage of Americans who use this drug increases in terms of these two legal drugs.

Even worse, it`s important to note that more than 58% of Americans who suffer from a substance use disorder for drugs other than alcohol have a marijuana use disorder. Authorized sale: Vendors sell drugs for off-premises use, as is the case for alcohol and tobacco, the sale of which is restricted on the basis of age. The problem with decriminalization, however, is that it leaves drug trafficking in the hands of criminals, which affects users, but not the trade itself. Drug trafficking is big business – the UN estimates it accounts for 1.5% of global GDP. While the risks associated with the use of prohibited substances are regularly discussed, the damage caused by illicit drug trafficking is enormous and often overlooked. The argument, based on the analogy between alcohol and tobacco and psychoactive drugs, is weak because its conclusion that psychoactive drugs should be legalized does not follow from its premises. It is illogical to say that because alcohol and tobacco wreak havoc (for example, they are responsible for 500,000 premature deaths each year), a heavy toll of legalization is acceptable. In fact, the opposite seems more logical: banning the use of alcohol, tobacco and psychoactive drugs because of the harm they all cause. In addition, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, crack and the rest of the psychoactive drugs are not harmless substances – they have serious negative consequences for the health of users and the responsibility for addiction. But if the goal is to minimize harm to people at home and abroad, the right policy is to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana.

But perhaps the best reason to legalize hard drugs is that people who want to use them have the same freedom to determine their own well-being as those who use alcohol or marijuana or whatever. In a free society, the assumption must always be that individuals, not the government, can decide what is in their own interest. Drugs can bring pleasure; Drugs can be dangerous. They should be in the hands of doctors, pharmacists and regulated retailers, not criminals. Drug legalization would make drug use safer, but the greatest impact of the transition to a regulated drug market is that it would end the chaos, violence and corruption caused by criminal networks that engage in illicit drug trafficking. The war on drugs has been fought. He was lost. It is high time for reform. For drug users, the high price of illicit drugs makes it difficult and often impossible to obtain the drug without committing further crimes. Unemployed heroin addicts, for example, cannot easily find ways to finance their addiction without resorting to robbery and robbery to obtain the funds needed to buy the drugs they need. A state-controlled drug distribution system could easily solve these problems and make them available to those who need them at little or no cost. This would benefit society as a whole.

Proponents of drug legalization believe that the cheap and widespread supply of high-quality drugs will eliminate the illicit drug market, regulate quality and price, and reduce enforcement costs, including arrest and incarceration.