Not surprisingly, the broader international implications of drug legalization have also gone largely unnoticed. Here, too, there are still long questions that need to be answered. Given the longstanding role of the United States as the main sponsor of international drug control efforts, how would a decision to legalize drugs affect other countries? What will happen to the overall regime of multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements? Will each nation have to comply with a new set of rules? If not, what would happen? Would more permissive countries suddenly be flooded with drugs and addicts, or would drug traffickers focus on countries where stricter restrictions have kept profits higher? This is not an abstract issue. The Netherlands` liberal drug policy has attracted an influx of “drug tourists” from neighboring countries, as has the now-abandoned city of Zurich after the now-abandoned experiment that allowed an open drug market in the so-called “needle park.” And while it is conceivable that rich countries can mitigate the worst consequences of drug legalization through extensive public drug prevention and treatment programs, what about the poorest countries? Proponents of legalization admit that consumption would likely increase, but counter that it is not clear that the increase would be very large or time-consuming, especially if legalization were paired with appropriate public education programs. They, too, cite historical evidence to support their claims, noting that opium, heroin, and cocaine use had already begun to decline before prohibition went into effect, that alcohol consumption did not suddenly increase after prohibition was repealed, and that the decriminalization of cannabis use in 11 U.S. states in the 1970s did not lead to a dramatic increase in use. Some also point to the legal sale of cannabis products through regulated outlets in the Netherlands, which also does not appear to have significantly encouraged consumption by Dutch nationals. Opinion polls showing that most Americans would not rush to try previously banned drugs that suddenly became available are also being used to bolster the case for legalization. Even more encouragingly, organizations made up of individuals who have worked in law enforcement are formed to inform the public that “drugs — even hard drugs — do far less harm to Americans than the war on drugs.” 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. It turns out that legalizing drugs is not a public policy option that lends itself to simplistic or superficial debate.
It requires the dissection and revision of an order that has been conspicuously absent, despite the constant attention it receives. Apart from the discussion of some very broadly defined proposals, there has been no detailed assessment of the operational importance of legalisation. There is not even a lexicon of universally accepted terms to allow for intellectually rigorous exchange. As a result, legalization means different things to different people. For example, some use legalization interchangeably with “decriminalization,” which usually refers to the elimination of criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. Others equate, at least implicitly, legalization with complete deregulation, without acknowledging the extent to which currently legally available drugs are subject to strict controls. However, what is generally presented as a fairly simple process of lifting prohibitionist controls to reap these supposed benefits would actually mean addressing an extremely complex set of regulatory issues. As with most, if not all, goods supplied by individuals and public funds, the main regulatory issues concern the type of medicines legally available, the conditions under which they are supplied and the conditions under which they are consumed (see page 21). Mill argued that certain social groups, particularly children, needed additional protection.
And some argue that drug users are also in a classroom: once addicted, they can no longer make rational decisions about whether they want to continue harming themselves. However, addicted users are not just a minority of all users; By the way, society rejected this argument in the case of alcohol – and nicotine (whose addictive power is superior to that of heroin). It is important that governments spend appropriately on health education. And how, if drugs were legal, could they be distributed? The idea of heroin on supermarket shelves naturally adds to the terror of perspective. Just as legal drugs are available through various channels – caffeine from all coffee shops, alcohol only with proof of age, Prozac only by prescription – so drugs that are now illegal could one day be distributed in different ways depending on knowledge of their harmful potential. In addition, different countries should experiment with different solutions: at present, many are bound by a UN agreement that hinders even the smallest liberalisation measures and clearly needs to be changed. 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. To promote the book and this idea, Hart traveled abroad.
During these trips, he stated that he advocated the decriminalization and regulation of all drugs from a harm reduction perspective, positions that brought him to the far left of the American debate. Still, it was sometimes challenged by viewers who thought these positions were patronizing to users. At an event in Vancouver, a man in the audience raised his hand and explained that he was a heroin user. “Canadians are more polite than New Yorkers, but he basically said, `Who are you to tell me how to live my life?` Hart recalls. The man was intelligent and clear, and he knew things about heroin that Hart didn`t. Hart said the conversation made him feel like he was “paternalistic, pedantic, all these things.” I thought I was, I don`t know, an enlightened scientist, and it came down to having no rights. 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.
Recent Comments