Drug offences also account for the lion`s share of the work of the police, courts and prisons. But what can we do? Some people think we should legalize drugs – treat them like alcohol and tobacco, like regulated products. And legalization doesn`t have to apply to all illegal drugs. More importantly, such discussions are unnecessary until the nature of the purported regulatory regime is clarified. It would be surprising, for example, if the use of legalized drugs did not increase, if they were as available on the market as alcohol and tobacco products are today, with sophisticated packaging, marketing and advertising. But more restrictive systems could have very different results. In any case, the risk of increased drug use could be acceptable if legalization could dramatically, if not completely, eradicate crime linked to the black market in illicit drugs, while making some forms of drug use safer. Again, there are controversial claims. Obviously, there are big differences between drugs, both in the effect they have on the user and in their addictive and/or harmful potential. Some drugs that are generally considered addictive are not really addictive, while others that are freely available (such as sugar or nicotine) are both addictive and dangerous to users` health, but are still legal and widely used in society. If the government heavily imposed a legalized drug market, drug gangs could still operate. This could include manufacturing or smuggling fabrics and selling them to consumers at lower prices or selling stronger versions.
The government could generate tax revenue from a legalized drug market. In June 2019, it was reported that the US state of Colorado had surpassed $1 billion in revenue from the sale of cannabis since legalization in 2014. The Liberal Democrats have suggested that legalising cannabis in the UK could bring in £1.5 billion a year. There could also be huge savings in money and resources if illicit drug trafficking did not need to be monitored to the same extent. A regulated recreational drug market would provide states with tax revenue that could be used to better control drugs or support addicts. A 1994 document estimates marijuana tax revenues in the United States at only between $3 billion and $9 billion per year.1 In comparison, the budget of the U.S. Department of Education in 1992 was about $30 billion; and in 1993, U.S. tobacco tax revenues were about $12 billion.2 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 is often argued that more people could experiment with drugs if they were legal when otherwise they would not. This could be especially harmful to people with a genetic predisposition to addiction. Drugs could become more accessible to many people. It is true that we know from many ancient societies that they used drugs for medicinal and ritual purposes, but also for leisure and pleasure 7. From the ancient Greeks to Sigmund Freud`s cocaine use, the history of human societies has always been a history of drugs. In 2014, a number of prominent figures, including Sir Richard Branson, Sting and Michael Mansfield QC, signed a letter urging the government to consider decriminalising cannabis. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization, but it is an important step in that direction. The drug advocacy organization Release organized the letter, saying users have a better chance of escaping or avoiding addiction if they are not “trapped in the criminal justice system.” They added that evidence from other countries that have legalized drugs supports this view. Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show the gap between the use of legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco and increasingly marijuana) and illicit drugs.
Among Americans 12 and older, about 51 percent have consumed alcohol in the past 30 days, while about 21 percent have used tobacco. The percentage of those who used marijuana is almost 12%, which is considerably higher than those who used opioids (1%) or cocaine (0.7%). The composition of the different substances could be monitored more closely. This may mean, for example, reducing the amount of THC – the main psychoactive component of a cannabis strain. It could also help prevent other drugs from being “cut” with even more dangerous substances and regulate the purity of certain substances, reducing the risk of overdose. Portugal has experienced much lower overdose rates since legalization, as well as drug-related AIDS cases. Decriminalization primarily refers to offences related to the use and possession of drugs, not the sale or supply of drugs. One of the arguments in favour of decriminalization is to focus on drug users rather than drug suppliers. The idea is to give users a more humane and reasonable response to their drug use. 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? None of the illicit drugs are biologically less attractive than alcohol or tobacco. The reason so many Americans use these two drugs is that they are legal for adults and widely used and supported by established industries. The legalization of marijuana ensures that the percentage of Americans who use this drug increases in terms of these two legal drugs. Even worse, it`s important to note that more than 58% of Americans who suffer from a substance use disorder for drugs other than alcohol have a marijuana use disorder. Some medications, including cannabis, have medicinal uses. These could potentially be researched without policy implications if drugs were used legally in other contexts. Another important decision is the decision between recreational and medical drug use.
Most societies agree that most drugs, including addictive ones, can be used therapeutically by health professionals; whereas they would not allow the same drugs to be used “for pleasure”. Especially with regard to the drug debate, the “free choice” hypothesis is even more problematic: drug users may act under social pressure (e.g. when they first discuss drugs with their peers at school) or they may already act under the influence of drug addiction. In both cases, they are not free to make a rational choice.