Six arguments for the legalisation of drugs
How
would a world without the war against drugs be? How would a world
with legalised drugs would look like? For many people these questions
are out of discussion! However out there there are some good
arguments for the legalisation of the drugs. In this article I am
going to develop six of them based on my readings. These arguments
are not meant to be received as absolute truths. They are open to
debate and there should be an open debate around them.
But
before going further I would like to make some clarifications. When
talking about legalisation of drugs I mean legalisation and
regulation of the market. There is no “one size fits all”
solution and it’s obvious you shouldn’t be able to buy drugs like
candies. The drugs are harmful substances and their legalisation
should be come with a clear legislative scheme according to their
consequences. With all this being said, let me develop these six
arguments.
According
to the harm
principle the
freedom has priority and is the main principle which should govern a
society [1].
Thus, the individual is free to do whatever s/he wants as long as
s/he does not harm anybody else. Based on this principle the
individuals should enjoy limitless freedom to harm themselves even
when it comes to use of drugs.
It
becomes more difficult for teenagers to get drugs [2].
Actually, the war against drugs eliminates any space for the control
of who’s buying them. Consequently any teenager or adult can turn
to their friends/dealers and buy any amount of drugs they want. On
the contrary if drugs were regulated it would be easier to control
their circulation and eventually reduce it.
Deaths
caused by overdose decrease significantly and the amount of hiv
infected people is going to fall dramatically [2].
This is the experience from Vancouver (Canada) shows. There the local
government opened the so called “injection rooms”. There the
addicts were provided the items they needed to take their dose. These
items were sterilized, eliminating in this way the spread of
contagious diseases. Furthermore these “injection rooms” were
manned with health workers who guaranteed that addicts would be
provided medical assistance if needed and thus avoid dying from
overdose. Last, in these facilities showers and beds to sleep were
provided because the authorities wanted to help the drug addicts to
improve their overall personal hygiene.
The
people tend to consume generally lighter drugs [2].
The history tells about a strange shift during the alcohol
prohibition in the U.S.A. What has been observed is the majority of
the Americans who used to be beer drinkers before the prohibition,
became heavy drinkers during the prohibition. That means that they
started to consume stronger alcoholic drinks such as whisky because
they wanted to get the maximum effect at minimum time. Surprisingly
when the prohibition was abolished they returned to their old “light”
habits (beer). The argument is similar for the case of drugs. If you
can find light drugs relatively easy why should you bother looking
for stronger and more dangerous ones?
There
will be more money to spend on the treatment of addicted and deal
with the underlying causes of addiction [2].
The war on drugs has costed humanity trillions of dollars with
questionable results. The drugs are still out there, out of control
and consist one of the biggest illegal markets. So why not legalizing
them and divert sources into drug prevention programmes instead of
wasting resources into controlling drugs by law enforcement? After
all, as Hari suggests the causes that push people to drugs are
primarily social and these causes are not all addressed by the war on
drugs. Therefore, it is better to adopt a proactive rather than a
reactive approach to address the problem of drugs . This alternative
approach would allow build a virtuous cycle which prevent people from
drugs.
Many
addicted who are getting worse in prison, will become better if
treated in hospital and then helped to find a job [2].
This argument suggests a different treatment of the drug addicts.
Nowadays the drug addicts are perceived as criminals, they get
arrested, sent to jail and there they often continue to be addicts as
drugs circulate easily in jails around the world. This approach
wastes the potential of the addicts and gives them no chance to build
a second drug-free life. On the other hand, the experience from
Portugal shows that when the drug addicts are treated as patients and
empowered to build a second life, then most of them take their chance
and walk out from the world of drugs. This comes with an undeniable
social benefit as the society regains a member which used to be
marginalised.
When
I started reading and contemplating about the problem of drugs and
their potential legalisation I perceived primarily as a problem of
freedom. That is that people should be allowed to make their own
choices as long as they hurt nobody else. Soon I realised that the
war against drugs means waste of an enormous amount of resources and
that it preserves more problems than it solves. Actually the drug
barons become rich because drugs are an illegal commodity in our
societies. Last I concluded that there is something much more
important than the question of freedom or the management of
resources. It is those addicts that our societies push without any
remorse to the margins of an illegal world. Consequently, legalising
the drugs would be more like a chance for us to build more inclusive
and secure societies and maybe a small but significant step to become
more humane.
Sources
[1]
Aristides Hatzis (2017). Liberalism.
Papadopoulos
editions (available only in greek)
[2]
Johann
Hari (2016). Chasing
the Scream: The Opposite of Addiction is Connection.
Bloomsbury
USA
