Legalizing Drugs in the Us
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. Many arguments seem to make legalization a convincing alternative to today`s prohibitionist policies. In addition to undermining black market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could eliminate or at least significantly reduce the very problems that most concern the public: the crime, corruption and violence that accompany the functioning of illicit drug markets. It would also likely reduce the damage caused by the lack of quality controls for illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle parts and other unsanitary practices. In addition, governments could abandon costly and largely futile efforts to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and imprison offenders by spending the money saved to educate people not to use drugs and to treat those who become addicted. The regulated legalization system would likely have a number of restrictions on different drugs based on their perceived risk, so that while some drugs would be sold over-the-counter in pharmacies or other licensed establishments, drugs with a higher risk of harm could only be offered for sale in licensed settings where use is monitored and emergency medical care is provided. Provided.
This is not the case in the United Kingdom. Examples of drugs with different regulated distribution in most countries are: caffeine (coffee, tea), nicotine (tobacco)[16] and ethyl alcohol (beer, wine, spirits). No quality control. When drugs are illegal, the government cannot set standards for quality, purity or potency. As a result, illicit drugs are often contaminated or extremely strong, causing illness and sometimes death to those who use them. The legalization of drugs requires a return to the parameters of the Food and Pure Drugs Act before 1906, when almost all drugs were legal. This would require ending the government-imposed ban on the distribution or sale and personal use of some (or all) of the currently banned drugs. Proposed ideas range from full legalization, which would completely eliminate all forms of state control, to various forms of regulated legalization, where drugs would be legally available but under a state control system, which could mean, for example:[15] CONs: On the other hand, because psychoactive drugs, including marijuana, cause acute mental impairment, when people use the drug, In addition to addiction (approximately 9% of marijuana users), the increased accessibility, destigmatization and lower prices associated with legalization would result in more users and, as a result, more potential harms and harms in the population (e.g., drugs while driving) and addictions. In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for drug possession under Law 30/2000. [74] In addition, drug users should receive treatment instead of imprisonment. A study commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years since decriminalization began, illicit drug use by adolescents had declined, the rate of HIV infection among drug users had decreased, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been reduced by more than half, and the number of people who were being treated for substance abuse. [75] However, Peter Reuter, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, suggests that heroin use rates and related deaths may be due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics, but acknowledged that “decriminalization in Portugal has achieved its central goal.
Drug use has not increased. [22] The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission estimates that Measure 110 will reduce these inequalities and, overall, result in approximately 4,000 fewer people in Oregon per year being convicted of crimes or offenses of illegal drug possession. Today, anyone arrested by police with small amounts of hard drugs across Oregon receives a civil quote — like a ticket — not a criminal charge. So if you have up to 2 grams of methamphetamine or cocaine, 40 shots of LSD or oxycodone, up to one gram of heroin, among others, you will receive a quote and a $100 fine. This fine disappears if you agree to undergo a health examination through an addiction treatment hotline, an assessment that could lead to counselling or treatment. Medicalization is a political position taken for some psychoactive drugs. In particular, in the case of marijuana, its use for medical purposes has become law in most U.S. states. The medicalization of marijuana is unusual in this regard, as it is medically “recommended” rather than actually “prescribed” because rigorous empirical evidence of health benefits is limited. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington state passed voting initiatives to legalize marijuana, making the United States the first country in the world to legalize the commercial production, sale and use of marijuana. As of June 2021, 18 states and the District of Columbia legalized marijuana, adding it to alcohol and nicotine as the third legal drug for adults. Alcohol and nicotine are the leading causes of preventable disease and death in the United States.
This study appears to be the first to systematically examine the views of Americans who use substances and those who do not on the legalization and decriminalization of several substances, and the findings are relevant to current and future policy. Legalization/decriminalization of marijuana was supported, but not for other drugs, despite changing attitudes in other countries. As more information becomes available on the potential health benefits of certain substances that may result in policy changes in favour of their legalization or decriminalization, it is important that those directly affected by the policy changes (i.e., those who use substances) be included in these discussions to describe their unique perspectives. Studies of people on TUD treatment or people with varying degrees of SUD severity are also warranted, as they may be even more insightful in informing guidelines on legalization/decriminalization and the use of currently illegal drugs used to treat SUDs. It is also important to monitor and track changes in attitudes and beliefs over time. These nuances can impact public health messaging and the ability to target specific groups. Finally, what would happen to major suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all major markets? Would trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illegal businesses? What would happen to the countries of origin? Would they benefit, or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly emerge elsewhere? Such questions have not even been systematically asked, let alone seriously studied. “We`re going to see more and more people need help because drugs will be more readily available and there`s no one to control them,” said Ferraris, who recently retired as police chief in Woodburn, Oregon. Clark, an economist who has studied the effects of drug legalization, suggests that a certain tax or sin tax would counteract the increase in use. [36]:3 In addition, legalization would reduce the cost of mass incarceration of disproportionately affected marginalized communities. Of those arrested for drug possession or drug offenses, most are black or Hispanic.
[39] Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activities and related problems will disappear or even decline sharply. However, to answer this question, it is still necessary to know the specificities of the regulatory system, in particular the conditions of supply. When drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, the potential for illegal undercutting seems rather slim. In a more restrictive regime, such as state-controlled outlets or medical prescription systems, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to persist or expand to meet legally unmet demand. In short, the desire to control access to containment consumption must be weighed against emerging black market opportunities.