These approaches advocate the problem, without necessarily changing prohibitionist legislation, policies of 'leeway' in respect of those breaches more harmless. Advocates
tolerance policies but believe that the ban should be maintained as such do so for various reasons. On one side are those who believe that, in the context of internationalization of the problem and the social and cultural reality in which we, the legal political are not politically possible. From this point of view, even though the ultimate goal would be a full legalization should go through a stage just prior tolerance without legislative changes. On the other hand we have those, even if they wanted to see eliminated from the face of the earth all psychoactive substances, understand the economics and practice of prohibitionist system and choose to devote efforts to what repressors in evil, is the worst.
Of course, after this strategic concept implementations there are several tactics that decide to go through far should tolerance, what substances should affect enforcement priorities to be applied, and Finally, the desired future development of the system, the definition of political programs, health and education needed to make this possible. Prioritization is particularly exemplary in five points, Stephen Wisotsky, Professor of Law at Nova University, appeared before the committee of Narcotics of the U.S. Congress. This initiative proposes some measures worry about the occasional adult use and not very problematic, in private, soft drugs, and give high priority to resources to protect children, to avoid hard drugs and, in general, address those situations that generate obvious problems.
0 comments:
Post a Comment