Legalizing drugs greatly increase their consumption. Curiosity, no longer constrained by the legal restrictions, coupled with easy access to drugs, tempt many people. Even if that solve the problems of drug related crime, this escalation of consumption is a high opportunity cost.
This argument may be rebutted in several ways. The more liberal, would answer that in any case, the decision to take drugs or not an individual right and that the state should not decide what attitudes or behaviors are permissible at the individual level even though they may be potentially dangerous to those who practice them. Also, without being inconsistent with the above, another argument often used by certain anti-prohibitionists is that the use does not necessarily increase since, in fact, drugs are already available for those who want to use them, being only the individual will prove or to refrain from including the fixing the number of consumers. Furthermore, they argue, the situation of drug prohibition makes attractive for certain sectors, especially the youth, so they have a way of protest against society. Ending the ban, drugs vulgarizarían and lose much of their interest.
From my point of view, and without denying the validity of the above reasoning, I believe it is essential to recognize that the prohibitionists are correct in regard to increased consumption, but from this fact come to erroneous conclusions. Let's see. When something has been banned, liberalization always leads to a higher interest that would exist in a normal situation. It is one of the many side effects of prohibitionist system. In this sense, there would probably a greater number of people who would try, by curiosity, certain drugs. Marijuana use would rise initially, but would hardly that of heroin. If we assume that all drug use is bad and leads to physical and moral destruction of the person, the increased use scare us. If, as I have tried to show throughout the trial and, mainly in the first chapter, drug use does not involve the abuse and major health problems, social and moral are derived from the prohibition, nothing should scare you increase your consumption of certain substances, given that most disappear the consequences that now frighten us. Fortunately, although speculation may be interesting, are some examples that allow us to observe in laboratory conditions, the impact of the prevailing consumption. This is true in the case of Holland, where sale and use of marijuana is explicitly tolerated by the authorities. Nationwide, there are hundreds of coffee shops where cannabis is sold in all its varieties. This happens for 25 years and statistics show that the percentage of consumers is higher than other Western countries and much lower, in fact, the U.S. With the added benefit that users in the Netherlands have a cheaper, healthier and better quality than that of other countries where marijuana is prohibited. And besides, the main and most dangerous side effect of the marihuna does not exist in Holland, I am referring to jail.
In any case, some factors should be taken into account. Legalization would mean substantial savings for state coffers. Money for to Drugs, which currently ends up indirectly to the enrichment of the mafia and corruption of the state apparatus to be used, along with taxes collected on the sale to the education and health campaigns needed to promote responsible use of drugs. Do not forget, moreover, that the use of other substances, especially marijuana, could decrease the consumption of a drug that, although currently legal, is certainly much more dangerous. I refer to alcohol. This is another of the data we can learn from the Dutch experience, where the consumption of alcohol by young people has decreased significantly.
A final comment. Is a clear example of how they have been forgetting the initial motivations of drug prohibition, that is used to measure the problem, the number of people that the ratio of consumers and damage caused by their consumption. Consider a theoretical case. Determined political action doubled the number of users of a drug, but halved the damage, individually and collectively, caused by the measure. From a classic prohibitionist stance, moral basis, the answer would reject such action, ie not to increase the number of drug users under any circumstances, even if it means having to keep situations of suffering that would otherwise have been avoided. From the opposite point of view, a policy based on 'harm reduction', would support the measure, which reduces the total damage.
0 comments:
Post a Comment