With certain measures, the prohibition of popular recreational drugs leads to many more social ills than if we simply regulated and taxed them. Because drugs are illegal, they are used to fund organized crime around the world; they force participants to get involved with shady people; their effects on human health have not been sufficiently studied; They are not regulated, so people end up buying and injecting all sorts of terribly dangerous chemicals; They continue to fuel the very expensive and highly ineffective «war on drugs» that leads to prisons full of people who have committed non-violent, victimless crimes. The consequences of drugs on society would not exist if drugs were not a lucrative activity. The legalization of all substances takes away their value, and slowly but surely the availability decreases, because it is no longer worth it for dealers. You would also save taxpayers millions of dollars by removing low-level drug users from the prison system. And the benefits of personal freedom cannot be shouted loud enough. Okay, OP, I know I`m late for the party. I agree with the idea of legalizing and regulating drugs, but I am not going to sit here and pretend that it solves anything. In high school, it was much easier to cope with drugs than with alcohol.
As in the past, some observers will no doubt see the solution in much harsher penalties to deter both suppliers and users of illicit psychoactive substances. Others will argue that the answer lies not in more enforcement and tougher penalties, but in fewer penalties. In particular, they will argue that the edifice of national laws and international conventions that collectively prohibit the production, sale and use of large numbers of drugs for non-medical or scientific purposes has proven to be physically harmful, socially divisive, prohibitive and ultimately counterproductive by creating the very incentives that perpetuate a violent black market for illicit drugs. They will also conclude that the only logical step for the United States is to «legalize» drugs – essentially by repealing and dismantling current drug laws and enforcement mechanisms, just as America abandoned its brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. You listen to propaganda, don`t do secular research and want us to listen to you? No thanks, I`d rather have an argument with someone who isn`t a total fool. If you do some scientific research yourself, you`ll find that drugs like mild LSD and weed are actually quite harmless (not complete) and that the war on drugs is an absurd waste of money. People fall into poverty and suffer not because of drugs, but because of the ability to obtain drugs. Legalize pits and this problem would be eliminated. The fact is, you can change all of that by legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. If a leading lawyer, actor or doctor becomes addicted to their painkillers after surgery, we feel sorry for them and encourage them to get help so they can become a productive member of society again. When someone admits they have a drinking problem, we call them brave because they have recognized their problem, and we try to give them all the help they can to overcome their addiction. So why on earth should we treat heroin-addicted people like criminal scum? Let`s take them out, help them get help so we can defeat this problem, instead of just ignoring it, punishing those who have a health problem, forcing them to be intertwined with criminals and eventually being poisoned by bad drugs.
I can safely say that more people who use drugs are more afraid of being caught and arrested than of becoming addicted. More importantly, such discussions are unnecessary until the nature of the purported regulatory regime is clarified. It would be surprising, for example, if the use of legalized drugs did not increase, if they were as available on the market as alcohol and tobacco products are today, with sophisticated packaging, marketing and advertising. But more restrictive systems could have very different results.