essay on should drugs be legalized

Should drugs be legalized? Essay

Incensed by the steadily growing number of deaths, crime and corruption created by illicit drug trade and use in the recent years, a number of persons drawn from both the government and the private sector have been calling for the legalization of drugs to curb the problems associated with the abuse and trade in drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.

They argue that such a move would do more than any single act or policy in removing the biggest of society’s social and political problems. However, these calls are unfortunate and could throw an already grave problem completely out of hand. If examined carefully, it becomes clear that legalization of drugs would not bring a solution to any of the problems associated with drug abuse.

Proponents of the move to legalize argue that drug use should be an individual’s choice and the government should not control it in any way. This argument has two key shortcomings. First, we cannot just do anything we want with our bodies, just the same way a person cannot walk down the street naked, or say anything we want anywhere. The government has to step in at some point. Drug use is obviously more harmful than these two inconceivable acts.

Secondly, when people opt to do “whatever they want” with their bodies, such as drug use, it not only affects them, but also those around them (DEA, 2003). To put it practically, a driver who is ‘high’ on drugs puts the life of others on the road in danger. Such a person cannot operate machinery or even tend for their children and families as required of them. Therefore, the argument that every one has a right to do whatever they want with their bodies is simply misplaced.

Proponents of the debate to legalize drugs argue that this move will discourage drug use, citing a report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that the Dutch are the lowest users of cannabis. They attribute this to Netherlands’ soft stance on drugs which permits cannabis sale at coffee shops and the possession of not more than 5 grams of cannabis. However, this is a shallow argument.

The Dutch government’s soft policy on marijuana use has created a much bigger problem: the differentiation of markets between hard drug users and dealers (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) and soft drug users (marijuana) (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2001).

Consequently, the number of marijuana users has fallen as most people have resorted to hard drugs, making the country a criminal center for illegal artificial drug manufacture, especially ecstasy, in addition to becoming a home for the production and export of marijuana breeds that have been reported to be ten times higher than normal (DEA, 2003). Besides, a 2001 study in Australia that found that prohibition deters drug abuse (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2001).

Drug laws are very important in keeping these harmful substances out of reach of children. As long as drugs laws are put in place, the prices will continue to be higher, beyond the reach of most underage persons and even youths. The link between pricing and rate of drug use among young adults is evident in alcohol and drug use.

Studies show that high prices of alcohol and cigarettes result into decline in use of the substances (DEA, 2003). In addition, legalization of drugs would encourage sellers to recruit children sellers who can easily convince their peers to use the substances, hence increasing drug penetration into society. As long as drugs are not legalized, such a move is very unlikely, or can occur only in small scales.

DEA (U.S. Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration). (2003 ). Speaking out against Drug Legalization . Web.

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2001). Does prohibition deter cannabis use? Web.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 17). Should drugs be legalized? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/

"Should drugs be legalized?" IvyPanda , 17 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Should drugs be legalized'. 17 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Should drugs be legalized?" May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should drugs be legalized?" May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should drugs be legalized?" May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

Federal Government Should Not Legalize the Use of Marijuana
Should We Legalize Marijuana For Medical Use?
Why Is Marijuana Legalized In Some States And Not Others?
Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized?
Should Marijuana Be Legal?
Abortion: To Legalize or Not
Cannabis Smoking in Canada
Marijuana and Its Economic Value in the USA
How New York Would Benefit From Legalized Medical Marijuana
Medical Marijuana Policy in the United States
Problems with Bureaucracy
Contemporary Examples of Fascist Thoughts
Revolution's Positive Effects
Crime Prevention Programs in the State of California
Fundamental Right to Live: Abolish the Death Penalty

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Should drugs be legalized? Legalization pros and cons

Source: Composite by G_marius based on Chuck Grimmett's image

Should drugs be legalized? Why? Is it time to lift the prohibition on recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine? Can we stop drug trafficking? if so what would be the best way to reduce consumption?

Public health problem

Drugs continue to be one of the greatest problems for public health . Although the consumption of some substances has declined over time, new drugs have entered the market and become popular. In the USA, after the crack epidemic, in the 80s and early 90s, and the surge of methamphetamine, in the 90s and early 21st century, there is currently a prescription opioid crisis . The number of casualties from these opioids, largely bought in pharmacies, has overtaken the combined deaths from cocaine and heroine overdose. There are million of addicts to these substances which are usually prescribed by a doctor. This is a relevant twist to the problem of drugs because it shows that legalization or criminalization may not always bring the desire solution to the problem of drug consumption. On the other hand there is also evidence of success in reducing drug abuse through legal reform. This is the case of Portuguese decriminalization of drug use, which has show a dramatic decrease in drug related crime, overdoses and HIV infections.

History of prohibition of drugs

There are legal recreational drugs , such as alcohol and tobacco , and other recreational drugs which are prohibited. The history of prohibition of drugs is long. Islamic Sharia law, which dates back to the 7th century, banned some intoxicating substances, including alcohol. Opium consumption was later prohibited in China and Thailand. The Pharmacy Act 1868 in the United Kingdom was the first modern law in Europe regulating drug use. This law prohibited the distribution of poison and drugs, and in particular opium and derivates. Gradually other Western countries introduced laws to limit the use of opiates. For instance in San Francisco smoking opium was banned in 1875 and in Australia opium sale was prohibited in 1905 . In the early 20th century, several countries such as Canada, Finland, Norway, the US and Russia, introduced alcohol prohibitions . These alcohol prohibitions were unsucessful and lifted later on. Drug prohibitions were strengthened around the world from the 1960s onward. The US was one of the main proponents of a strong stance against drugs, in particular since Richad Nixon declared the "War on Drugs ." The "War on Drugs" did not produced the results expected. The demand for drugs grew as well as the number of addicts. Since production and distribution was illegal, criminals took over its supply. Handing control of the drug trade to organized criminals has had disastrous consequences across the globe. T oday, drug laws diverge widely across countries. Some countries have softer regulation and devote less resources to control drug trafficking, while in other countries the criminalization of drugs can entail very dire sentences. Thus while in some countries recreational drug use has been decriminalized, in others drug traficking is punished with life or death sentences.

Should drugs be legalized?

In many Western countries drug policies are considered ineffective and decriminalization of drugs has become a trend. Many experts have provided evidence on why drugs should be legal . One reason for legalization of recreational drug use is that the majority of adicts are not criminals and should not be treated as such but helped in other ways. The criminalization of drug users contributes to generating divides in our societies. The "War on Drugs" held by the governments of countries such as USA , Mexico, Colombia, and Indonesia, created much harm to society. Drug related crimes have not always decline after a more intolerant government stance on drugs. Prohibition and crime are often seen as correlated.

T here is also evidence of successful partial decriminalization in Canada, Switzerland, Portugal and Uruguay. Other countries such as Ireland seem to be following a similar path and are planning to decriminalize some recreational drugs soon. Moreover, The United Nations had a special session on drugs on 2016r, UNGASS 2016 , following the request of the presidents of Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala. The goal of this session was to analyse the effects of the war on drugs. explore new options and establish a new paradigm in international drug policy in order to prevent the flow of resources to organized crime organizations. This meeting was seen as an opportunity, and even a call, for far-reaching drug law reforms. However, the final outcome failed to change the status quo and to trigger any ambitious reform.

However, not everyone is convinced about the need of decriminalization of recreational drugs. Some analysts point to several reasons why drugs should not be legalized and t he media have played an important role in shaping the public discourse and, indirectly, policy-making against legalization. For instance, t he portrayal of of the issue in British media, tabloids in particular, has reinforced harmful, dehumanising stereotypes of drug addicts as criminals. At the moment the UK government’s response is to keep on making illegal new recreational drugs. For instance, Psychoactive Substances Bill aims at criminalizing legal highs . Those supporting the bill argue that criminalization makes more difficult for young people to have access to these drugs and could reduce the number of people who get addicted.

List of recreational drugs

This is the list of recreational drugs (in alphabetic order) which could be subject to decriminalization in the future:

Amfetamines (speed, whizz, dexies, sulph)
Amyl nitrates (poppers, amys, kix, TNT)
Cannabis (marijuana, hash, hashish, weed)
Cocaine (crack, freebase, toot)
Ecstasy (crystal, MDMA, E)
Heroin (H, smack, skag, brown)
Ketamine (K, special K, green)
LSD (acid, paper mushrooms, tripper)
Magic mushrooms (mushies, magics)
Mephedrone (meow meow, drone, m cat)
Methamfetamines (yaba, meth, crank, glass)
Painkillers, sedatives and tranquilizers (chill pills, blues, bricks)

Pros and cons of legalization of drugs

These are some of the most commonly argued pros of legalization :

Government would see the revenues boosted due to the money collected from taxing drugs.
Health and safety controls on these substances could be implemented, making recreational drugs less dangerous.
Facilitate access for medicinal use. For instance cannabis is effective treating a range of conditions. Other recreational drugs could be used in similar ways.
Personal freedom. People would have the capacity to decide whether they experiment with drugs without having to be considered criminals or having to deal with illegal dealers.
Criminal gangs could run out of business and gun violence would be reduced.
Police resources could be used in other areas and help increase security.
The experience of decriminalization of drugs in some countries such as Portugal and Uruguay, has led to a decrease in drug related problems.

Cons of decriminalizing drug production, distribution and use:

New users for drugs. As in the case of legal recreational drugs, decriminalization does not imply reduction in consumption. If these substances are legal, trying them could become "more normal" than nowadays.
Children and teenagers could more easily have access to drugs.
Drug trafficking would remain a problem. If governments heavily tax drugs, it is likely that some criminal networks continue to produce and smuggle them providing a cheaper price for consumers.
The first few countries which decide to legalize drugs could have problems of drug tourism.
The rate of people driving and having accidents due drug intoxication could increase.
Even with safety controls, drugs would continue to be a great public health problem and cause a range of diseases (damamge to the brain and lungs, heart diseases, mental health conditions).
People may still become addicts and die from legalized drugs, as in America's opioid crisis.

What do think, should recreational drugs be legalized or decriminalized? Which of them? Is legalising drugs being soft on crime? Is the prohibition on drugs making the work of the police more difficult and diverting resources away from other more important issues? Join the discussion and share arguments and resources on the forum below .

Watch these videos on decriminalization of drugs

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

What is netivist?
Entertainment
Top Debates
Top Campaigns
Provide Feedback

Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Criminal Justice
Study Guides
Should Drugs Be Legalized?
The Process of Criminal Justice
The Politics of Criminal Justice
Which Model Crime Control or Due Process
The Structure of Criminal Justice
Racial Disparities
Is the Criminal Justice System Racist?
Citizen Participation
Rights Consciousness and Civil Liberties
Part I Offenses
Drugs and Crime
Guns and Crime
Does Gun Control Reduce Crime?
Definitions of Crime
Types of Crime
Sources of Criminal Law
The Nature of Criminal Law
Functions of Criminal Law
Legal Elements of a Crime
Legal Defenses, Justifications for Crimes
The Limits of Criminal Law
Developing the New Police
Frontier Justice
Progressive Police Reform
Crime Control Decades (1919–1959)
Policing the Social Crises of the 1960s
Crime Control Revisited (1970s–1990s)
Policing Colonial America
Law Enforcement Goes High‐Tech
Should Police Take DNA Samples?
Police Systems
Police Organization
Police Strategies
Does Community Policing Prevent Crime?
The Nature of Police Work
The Exclusionary Rule
Fifth Amendment: Right to Remain Silent
Citizens' Rights: A Barrier to Justice?
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
The Right to Privacy
Police Brutality
Deadly Force
Police Corruption
Employment Discrimination
Affirmative Action: A Tool for Justice?
Police Perjury
Federal Courts
Heavy Caseloads and Delay
Remove Judges Who Are “Soft on Crime”
State Courts
The Posttrial Process
Should Plea Bargaining Be Abolished?
Introducing Defendants' Rights
The Pretrial Process
The Trial Process
Prosecutorial Discretion
Important Relationships for Prosecutors
Case‐Management Policies
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Headhunting: Effective in Organized-Crime Combat?
Introducing the Prosecutors
Types of Prosecutors
Defense Strategies
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Do Most Defense Attorneys Distort Truth?
Introducing the Defense Attorneys
The Adversary Justice System
Types of Defense
Sentencing Statutes and Guidelines
Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
Theories of Punishment
Types of Sentences
Prisoners' Rights
Can Imprisoning More Criminals Cut Crime?
A Separate System for Juveniles
Minorities in Juvenile Justice
Myths About Juvenile Justice
Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?
Juveniles' Responsibilities and Rights

The main solutions to the drug problem focus on supply and demand. Supply‐side solutions include initiatives aimed at pressuring drug‐producing countries to halt the exporting of illegal drugs, intercepting drugs before smugglers can get them across American borders, passing tougher drug laws, cracking down on drug dealers, and sentencing drug manufacturers and dealers to long prison terms. Demand‐side solutions include drug education and drug treatment. A more radical approach suggests legalization (in other words, removal of drug offense from criminal codes) as the only viable solution.

Drugs should be legalized

There are numerous arguments for drug legalization.

Criminal prohibition of drugs has not eliminated or substantially reduced drug use.

The drug war has cost society more than drug abuse itself. Costs include the $16 billion the federal government alone spent to fight drugs in 1998. Of this $16 billion, $10.5 billion pays for measures to reduce the supply of drugs. Most of these measures involve law enforcement efforts to interdict or intercept drug supplies at the borders. Costs also include corruption, damage to poor and minority neighborhoods, a world‐wide black market in illegal drugs, the enrichment of criminal organizations through their involvement in the drug trade, and an increase in predatory crimes, such as robberies and burglaries, committed by drug addicts who are enslaved to drugs.

Most illegal drugs are no more harmful than legal substances, such as cigarettes and alcohol, and therefore, drugs should be treated the same as these other substances.

Legalization would free up billions of dollars that the government now spends on police, courts, and corrections to wage war on drugs and would produce significant tax revenues. The money saved could then be spent on drug education, drug treatment, and law enforcement initiatives directed at more serious crimes.

Drug prohibition infringes on civil liberties. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that because drugs are such a horrible thing, it is okay to bend the Fourth Amendment (which relates to searches and seizures) in order to make it easier to secure convictions in drug cases.

Drugs should not be legalized

There are also many arguments against legalization.

Legalization would increase the number of casual users which, in turn, would increase the number of drug abusers.

More drug users, abusers, and addicts would mean more health problems and lower economic productivity.

Although legalization might result in savings in expensive criminal justice costs and provide tax revenues, increased public‐health costs and reduced economic productivity due to more drug‐dependent workers would offset the financial benefits of legalization.

The argument based on the analogy between alcohol and tobacco versus psychoactive drugs is weak because its conclusion—psychoactive drugs should be legalized—does not follow from its premises. It is illogical to say that because alcohol and tobacco take a terrible toll (for example, they are responsible for 500,000 premature deaths each year), a heavy toll from legalization is therefore acceptable. Indeed, the reverse seems more logical: prohibit the use of alcohol, tobacco, and psychoactive drugs because of the harm they all do. Additionally, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, crack, and the rest of the psychoactive drugs are not harmless substances—they have serious negative consequences for the health of users and addictive liability.

Evaluating drug legalization

Is legalization a gamble worth taking? Arguments on both sides are persuasive. What should we do if we can neither clearly accept nor reject drug legalization? One approach proposed as being sensible is to suspend judgment, to recognize that proponents of legalization are partly right (that the drug war has proven ineffective in reducing drug abuse and crime associated with drugs), and to realize that it is time to explore new approaches.

Previous The Limits of Criminal Law

Next Developing the New Police

Drug Legalization?: Time for a real debate

Subscribe to governance weekly, paul stares ps paul stares.

March 1, 1996

11 min read

Whether Bill Clinton “inhaled” when trying marijuana as a college student was about the closest the last presidential campaign came to addressing the drug issue. The present one, however, could be very different. For the fourth straight year, a federally supported nationwide survey of American secondary school students by the University of Michigan has indicated increased drug use. After a decade or more in which drug use had been falling, the Republicans will assuredly blame the bad news on President Clinton and assail him for failing to carry on the Bush and Reagan administrations’ high-profile stand against drugs. How big this issue becomes is less certain, but if the worrisome trend in drug use among teens continues, public debate about how best to respond to the drug problem will clearly not end with the election. Indeed, concern is already mounting that the large wave of teenagers—the group most at risk of taking drugs—that will crest around the turn of the century will be accompanied by a new surge in drug use.

As in the past, some observers will doubtless see the solution in much tougher penalties to deter both suppliers and consumers of illicit psychoactive substances. Others will argue that the answer lies not in more law enforcement and stiffer sanctions, but in less. Specifically, they will maintain that the edifice of domestic laws and international conventions that collectively prohibit the production, sale, and consumption of a large array of drugs for anything other than medical or scientific purposes has proven physically harmful, socially divisive, prohibitively expensive, and ultimately counterproductive in generating the very incentives that perpetuate a violent black market for illicit drugs. They will conclude, moreover, that the only logical step for the United States to take is to “legalize” drugs—in essence repeal and disband the current drug laws and enforcement mechanisms in much the same way America abandoned its brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

Although the legalization alternative typically surfaces when the public’s anxiety about drugs and despair over existing policies are at their highest, it never seems to slip off the media radar screen for long. Periodic incidents—such as the heroin-induced death of a young, affluent New York City couple in 1995 or the 1993 remark by then Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders that legalization might be beneficial and should be studied—ensure this. The prominence of many of those who have at various times made the case for legalization—such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, and George Shultz—also helps. But each time the issue of legalization arises, the same arguments for and against are dusted off and trotted out, leaving us with no clearer understanding of what it might entail and what the effect might be.

As will become clear, drug legalization is not a public policy option that lends itself to simplistic or superficial debate. It requires dissection and scrutiny of an order that has been remarkably absent despite the attention it perennially receives. Beyond discussion of some very generally defined proposals, there has been no detailed assessment of the operational meaning of legalization. There is not even a commonly accepted lexicon of terms to allow an intellectually rigorous exchange to take place. Legalization, as a consequence, has come to mean different things to different people. Some, for example, use legalization interchangeably with “decriminalization,” which usually refers to removing criminal sanctions for possessing small quantities of drugs for personal use. Others equate legalization, at least implicitly, with complete deregulation, failing in the process to acknowledge the extent to which currently legally available drugs are subject to stringent controls.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government—including the Clinton administration—has done little to improve the debate. Although it has consistently rejected any retreat from prohibition, its stance has evidently not been based on in- depth investigation of the potential costs and benefits. The belief that legalization would lead to an instant and dramatic increase in drug use is considered to be so self-evident as to warrant no further study. But if this is indeed the likely conclusion of any study, what is there to fear aside from criticism that relatively small amounts of taxpayer money had been wasted in demonstrating what everyone had believed at the outset? Wouldn’t such an outcome in any case help justify the continuation of existing policies and convincingly silence those—admittedly never more than a small minority—calling for legalization?

A real debate that acknowledges the unavoidable complexities and uncertainties surrounding the notion of drug legalization is long overdue. Not only would it dissuade people from making the kinds of casual if not flippant assertions—both for and against—that have permeated previous debates about legalization, but it could also stimulate a larger and equally critical assessment of current U.S. drug control programs and priorities.

First Ask the Right Questions

Many arguments appear to make legalization a compelling alternative to today’s prohibitionist policies. Besides undermining the black-market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could remove or at least significantly reduce the very problems that cause the greatest public concern: the crime, corruption, and violence that attend the operation of illicit drug markets. It would presumably also diminish the damage caused by the absence of quality controls on illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle sharing and other unhygienic practices. Furthermore, governments could abandon the costly and largely futile effort to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and jail drug offenders, spending the money thus saved to educate people not to take drugs and treat those who become addicted.

However, what is typically portrayed as a fairly straightforward process of lifting prohibitionist controls to reap these putative benefits would in reality entail addressing an extremely complex set of regulatory issues. As with most if not all privately and publicly provided goods, the key regulatory questions concern the nature of the legally available drugs, the terms of their supply, and the terms of their consumption (see page 21).

What becomes immediately apparent from even a casual review of these questions—and the list presented here is by no means exhaustive—is that there is an enormous range of regulatory permutations for each drug. Until all the principal alternatives are clearly laid out in reasonable detail, however, the potential costs and benefits of each cannot begin to be responsibly assessed. This fundamental point can be illustrated with respect to the two central questions most likely to sway public opinion. What would happen to drug consumption under more permissive regulatory regimes? And what would happen to crime?

Relaxing the availability of psychoactive substances not already commercially available, opponents typically argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial rise in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin, and cocaine addiction in various countries before international controls took effect, the rise in alcohol consumption after the Volstead Act was repealed in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among medical professionals with greater access to prescription drugs. Without explaining the basis of their calculations, some have predicted dramatic increases in the number of people taking drugs and becoming addicted. These increases would translate into considerable direct and indirect costs to society, including higher public health spending as a result of drug overdoses, fetal deformities, and other drug-related misadventures such as auto accidents; loss of productivity due to worker absenteeism and on-the-job accidents; and more drug-induced violence, child abuse, and other crimes, to say nothing about educational impairment.

Advocates of legalization concede that consumption would probably rise, but counter that it is not axiomatic that the increase would be very large or last very long, especially if legalization were paired with appropriate public education programs. They too cite historical evidence to bolster their claims, noting that consumption of opium, heroin, and cocaine had already begun falling before prohibition took effect, that alcohol consumption did not rise suddenly after prohibition was lifted, and that decriminalization of cannabis use in 11 U.S. states in the 1970s did not precipitate a dramatic rise in its consumption. Some also point to the legal sale of cannabis products through regulated outlets in the Netherlands, which also does not seem to have significantly boosted use by Dutch nationals. Public opinion polls showing that most Americans would not rush off to try hitherto forbidden drugs that suddenly became available are likewise used to buttress the pro-legalization case.

Neither side’s arguments are particularly reassuring. The historical evidence is ambiguous at best, even assuming that the experience of one era is relevant to another. Extrapolating the results of policy steps in one country to another with different sociocultural values runs into the same problem. Similarly, within the United States the effect of decriminalization at the state level must be viewed within the general context of continued federal prohibition. And opinion polls are known to be unreliable.

More to the point, until the nature of the putative regulatory regime is specified, such discussions are futile. It would be surprising, for example, if consumption of the legalized drugs did not increase if they were to become commercially available the way that alcohol and tobacco products are today, complete with sophisticated packaging, marketing, and advertising. But more restrictive regimes might see quite different outcomes. In any case, the risk of higher drug consumption might be acceptable if legalization could reduce dramatically if not remove entirely the crime associated with the black market for illicit drugs while also making some forms of drug use safer. Here again, there are disputed claims.

Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activity and its associated problems would disappear or even fall very much. But, as before, addressing this question requires knowing the specifics of the regulatory regime, especially the terms of supply. If drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, opportunities for illicit undercutting would appear to be rather small. Under a more restrictive regime, such as government-controlled outlets or medical prescription schemes, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to remain or evolve to satisfy the legally unfulfilled demand. In short, the desire to control access to stem consumption has to be balanced against the black market opportunities that would arise. Schemes that risk a continuing black market require more questions—about the new black markets operation over time, whether it is likely to be more benign than existing ones, and more broadly whether the trade-off with other benefits still makes the effort worthwhile.

The most obvious case is regulating access to drugs by adolescents and young adults. Under any regime, it is hard to imagine that drugs that are now prohibited would become more readily available than alcohol and tobacco are today. Would a black market in drugs for teenagers emerge, or would the regulatory regime be as leaky as the present one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to either question would lessen the attractiveness of legalization.

What about the International Repercussions?

Not surprisingly, the wider international ramifications of drug legalization have also gone largely unremarked. Here too a long set of questions remains to be addressed. Given the longstanding U.S. role as the principal sponsor of international drug control measures, how would a decision to move toward legalizing drugs affect other countries? What would become of the extensive regime of multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements? Would every nation have to conform to a new set of rules? If not, what would happen? Would more permissive countries be suddenly swamped by drugs and drug consumers, or would traffickers focus on the countries where tighter restrictions kept profits higher? This is not an abstract question. The Netherlands’ liberal drug policy has attracted an influx of “drug tourists” from neighboring countries, as did the city of Zurich’s following the now abandoned experiment allowing an open drug market to operate in what became known as “Needle Park.” And while it is conceivable that affluent countries could soften the worst consequences of drug legalization through extensive public prevention and drug treatment programs, what about poorer countries?

Finally, what would happen to the principal suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all of the main markets? Would the trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illicit enterprises? What would happen to the source countries? Would they benefit or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly spring up elsewhere? Such questions have not even been posed in a systematic way, let alone seriously studied.

Irreducible Uncertainties

Although greater precision in defining more permissive regulatory regimes is critical to evaluating their potential costs and benefits, it will not resolve the uncertainties that exist. Only implementation will do that. Because small-scale experimentation (assuming a particular locality’s consent to be a guinea pig) would inevitably invite complaints that the results were biased or inconclusive, implementation would presumably have to be widespread, even global, in nature.

Yet jettisoning nearly a century of prohibition when the putative benefits remain so uncertain and the potential costs are so high would require a herculean leap of faith. Only an extremely severe and widespread deterioration of the current drug situation, nationally and internationally—is likely to produce the consensus—again, nationally and internationally that could impel such a leap. Even then the legislative challenge would be stupendous. The debate over how to set the conditions for controlling access to each of a dozen popular drugs could consume the legislatures of the major industrial countries for years.

None of this should deter further analysis of drug legalization. In particular, a rigorous assessment of a range of hypothetical regulatory regimes according to a common set of variables would clarify their potential costs, benefits, and trade- offs. Besides instilling much-needed rigor into any further discussion of the legalization alternative, such analysis could encourage the same level of scrutiny of current drug control programs and policies. With the situation apparently deteriorating in the United States as well as abroad, there is no better time for a fundamental reassessment of whether our existing responses to this problem are sufficient to meet the likely challenges ahead.

Governance Studies

Vanda Felbab-Brown

March 21, 2024

William A. Galston

March 8, 2024

Thea Sebastian, Hanna Love

March 6, 2024

“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett

The war against drugs in the United States has reached a new level. Such an outcome is conditional upon the recent measures that politicians are discussing. More specifically, they are related to the emergence of an idea to legalize drug consumption in order to decrease the number of drug addicts in the long run. Moreover, this measure would allow the government to combat drug pushers by offering the product, which is cheaper, safer, and, what is more important, legal. This initiative is still under consideration and finds both supporters and opponents. The problem is that no one can predict the results of passing the drug law. European countries’ experience with such policies does not guarantee the similarity between the processes in different countries. Therefore, anti-drug activists such as William Bennett present their views on the matter. In his article, “Should drugs be legalized?” Bennett provides a series of arguments against the drug law and thereby highlights the controversy of the attempts to pass it.

The first and second arguments that he considers are politicians’ beliefs that the legalization of drugs will take the profits out of the industry and eliminate the black market. However, it is not as simple as it seems, and Bennett rebuts this idea by proving its inconsistency and providing an alternative view on the issue. From his perspective, selling drugs in regular shops will not harm the business of pushers, as they will keep producing some dangerous types of them, which the government will never produce. Hence, the black market will prosper, and the illegality of drugs it offers can even increase their attractiveness for addicts. As for the government, the only achievement, in this case, will be sharing “the drug profits now garnered by criminals.” It allows concluding that the opponents of drug legalization merely do not wish to see the government becoming an official drug dealer. Nevertheless, such a course of events will be impossible to turn once the law is passed, and the government will have to keep up with the competition on the market.

The third argument that Bennett refutes is the positive impact of drug legalization on the United States’ crime rate. He proves it wrong by presenting the fact that most crimes committed by criminals with drug addiction took place before they started taking them. Indeed, drugs can enhance the probability of such felonies but only for the people who were previously involved in similar activities. According to Bennett, over the time he spent traveling throughout the country, he did not see any signs of the probability that “lower drug prices would reduce crime.” In most cases, especially when children are involved, there is no connection between the price and the crime rate. Therefore, the argument of supporters of drug legalization has proved to be inconsistent in terms of reducing crime rates. In this case, Bennett only refutes the statement but does not provide an alternative perspective. It might be connected to the fact that there is no link between the two measurements, which are drug prices and crime rates.

The fourth argument that drug legalization is the best method since addicts harm only themselves contradicts the information presented in the third argument. Hence, Bennett rebuts it by outlining the cases of casualties among children related to drug addicts or people who happened to meet them when they could not control themselves. Moreover, the author cites the statement of a former cocaine addict, thereby complementing the views of politicians and their supporters on drug legalization by the opinion of a person with real experience in the sphere. According to him, one cannot fully understand what it feels like to be totally irresponsible for any actions and “borrowing money from people you know you cannot pay back.” In this way, the author of the article provides an alternative view using the words of a former drug addict. In the end, he expresses the idea that drug legalization would turn into modern slavery rather than help people live their lives to the fullest.

The article written by William Bennett is extremely useful as it combines the concerns of opponents of drug legalization and offers its supporters to resolve such issues before passing the law. Out of the four arguments presented by the author, three were rebutted, and only one refuted. Hence, he allows the reader to see the other side of the coin by expanding the awareness of citizens about the consequences of drug legalization. In short, the involvement of the government does not make its policy efficient but turns it into one of the competitors on the drug market, and this decision will not eliminate black markets. Moreover, the choice of drug consumption or refusal from it cannot be the sole responsibility of a person as he or she affects many other people, especially children. As for the refuted argument, there is no correlation between crime rates and drug addiction, and this issue requires further consideration.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, February 17). “Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/

"“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." StudyCorgi , 17 Feb. 2022, studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett'. 17 February.

1. StudyCorgi . "“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." February 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." February 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett." February 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-drugs-be-legalized-by-william-bennett/.

This paper, ““Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: February 17, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Should Drugs Be Legalized? Pros and Cons

Discover the pros and cons of drug legalization. Explore the economic benefits and potential risks. Join the debate now!

The Debate on Drug Legalization

The topic of drug legalization is a subject of intense debate and controversy. It elicits strong opinions from various stakeholders, including policymakers, law enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, and the general public. Understanding the arguments surrounding drug legalization is essential to navigate this complex issue.

Introduction to the Controversy

The debate on drug legalization centers around whether certain drugs should be made legal for various purposes, such as medical use, recreational use, or both. Advocates argue that legalization can bring about positive outcomes, such as economic benefits, reduced crime rates, and improved regulation and quality control. On the other hand, opponents express concerns about potential increases in drug use, public health risks, and societal impacts.

The discussion on drug legalization is often intertwined with specific substances, such as marijuana, which has been a focal point of the drug policy reform movement. Legalization of marijuana, in particular, has gained traction in several countries and states, prompting further exploration of drug policy reform.

Understanding the Arguments

Proponents of drug legalization put forth compelling arguments. One key aspect is the potential economic benefits. Legalization can create new industries, generate tax revenue, and redirect resources that were previously allocated to law enforcement towards education, prevention, and addiction treatment. Additionally, legalization is often associated with a decrease in drug-related crimes, as the illicit market diminishes and quality control measures are implemented.

However, opponents express concerns about the potential increase in drug use that could result from legalization. They argue that making drugs more accessible may lead to higher addiction rates and public health consequences. Substance abuse can have severe implications on individuals, families, and communities, necessitating a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, education, and access to drug addiction treatment options .

Societal impacts are another area of contention. Critics of drug legalization worry about potential negative consequences, such as impaired cognitive function, impaired driving, and disruptions to social order. They argue that the cost of addressing these issues may outweigh any perceived benefits of legalization.

Understanding the arguments surrounding drug legalization is crucial to informed decision-making and policy development. By exploring the pros and cons of drug legalization, policymakers and society can strive to strike a balance between individual freedom, public safety, and the well-being of communities.

Pros of Drug Legalization

While the debate surrounding drug legalization is complex and multifaceted, there are several potential benefits that proponents of drug legalization often highlight. This section will explore three key advantages: economic benefits, reduction in crime, and regulation and quality control.

Economic Benefits

One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is the potential for significant economic benefits. Legalizing drugs can create new revenue streams through taxation and regulation. The legal drug market can generate substantial tax revenue, which can be directed towards public services, education, healthcare, and addiction treatment programs.

Moreover, drug legalization can also stimulate economic growth by creating jobs in various sectors, such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail. This can have a positive ripple effect on the economy, providing employment opportunities and boosting local businesses.

Reduction in Crime

Another argument in favor of drug legalization is the potential for a reduction in certain types of crime. Many drug-related crimes are a result of the illegal nature of drug trade. By legalizing drugs, the illicit market is disrupted, and the associated crimes, such as drug trafficking and violence, can potentially decrease.

Legalization can also free up law enforcement resources, allowing them to focus on more serious crimes. Instead of targeting drug users, law enforcement can redirect their efforts towards prevention, education, and addressing more pressing public safety concerns.

Regulation and Quality Control

Legalizing drugs provides an opportunity for regulation and quality control. Under a regulated system, drugs can be manufactured, distributed, and sold under strict guidelines and standards. This can ensure that drugs are produced in safe environments, reducing the risk of contamination or the presence of harmful substances.

Regulation also allows for accurate labeling and dosage information, empowering individuals to make informed decisions about their drug use. By controlling the supply chain, the government can implement measures to monitor and mitigate potential risks associated with drug use, such as overdose prevention and harm reduction strategies.

To fully understand the pros and cons of drug legalization, it's important to consider the counterarguments and the potential drawbacks associated with this approach. In the following section, we will explore the cons of drug legalization, including the potential increase in drug use, public health concerns, and the impact on society.

Cons of Drug Legalization

While the debate on drug legalization presents various perspectives and arguments, there are valid concerns regarding the potential consequences of such a decision. This section will explore some of the cons associated with drug legalization, including the potential increase in drug use, public health concerns, and the impact on society.

Potential Increase in Drug Use

One of the primary concerns surrounding drug legalization is the potential increase in drug use. Critics argue that making drugs more accessible through legalization may lead to a rise in consumption, particularly among vulnerable populations such as youth or individuals who were previously deterred by the illegal status of drugs. This increase in drug use can have detrimental effects on individuals and communities, leading to potential health issues, addiction problems, and social consequences.

Public Health Concerns

Legalizing drugs can present significant public health concerns. The availability and increased use of drugs can lead to a surge in substance abuse disorders and related health problems. The healthcare system may face challenges in managing the increased demand for drug addiction treatment options. Additionally, the use of certain drugs, especially those with harmful effects on physical and mental health, can strain public health resources and contribute to the overall burden on the healthcare system.

Impact on Society

Drug legalization can have wide-ranging impacts on society as a whole. Critics argue that increased drug use can lead to negative social consequences, including impaired productivity, strained relationships, and potential increases in crime rates. The potential for addiction and its associated consequences, such as financial instability and strained family dynamics, can also put a burden on social support systems. Furthermore, the normalization of drug use through legalization may influence social norms and attitudes, potentially leading to a shift in societal values and acceptance of drug use.

It's important to consider these cons of drug legalization alongside the pros to have a comprehensive understanding of the issue. The debate surrounding drug policy reform is complex, involving multiple perspectives and considerations. Exploring case studies from countries with different drug policies can provide valuable insights into the potential consequences of drug legalization.

Examining Different Approaches

When discussing the topic of drug legalization , it is important to consider the various approaches that have been taken. This section explores the difference between decriminalization and legalization, examines case studies of countries with different drug policies, and highlights the lessons learned from these approaches.

Decriminalization vs. Legalization

Decriminalization and legalization are two distinct approaches to drug policy. While they may appear similar, it is crucial to understand their differences.

Decriminalization involves reducing the legal penalties associated with drug possession and use. In decriminalized systems, drug offenses are often treated as civil infractions or minor offenses, resulting in administrative penalties such as fines or mandatory drug education programs. However, drug production and distribution may still remain illegal.

On the other hand, legalization goes beyond decriminalization. It involves removing all legal prohibitions on drug possession, use, production, and distribution. Legalization typically comes with regulations and frameworks for the legal sale and consumption of drugs. This approach allows for government control and oversight, ensuring quality standards and taxation.

Case Studies: Countries with Different Drug Policies

Examining the drug policies implemented in various countries can provide valuable insights into the potential outcomes of different approaches. Here are a few notable case studies:

Lessons Learned

Analyzing the experiences of countries with different drug policies can provide valuable lessons for policymakers and stakeholders. While the impacts and outcomes of drug policy are complex and multifaceted, some common themes emerge:

Impact on Drug Use : The approach taken, whether decriminalization or legalization, can have varying effects on drug use rates. It is important to carefully monitor and evaluate these outcomes to inform future policy decisions.
Public Health and Harm Reduction : Countries that prioritize public health and harm reduction in their drug policies have seen positive results. These include increased access to treatment and support services, reduced overdose deaths, and improved public health outcomes.
Regulation and Control : Legalization allows for government regulation and control over drug production, distribution, and sales. This can help ensure product quality, safety, and consumer protection.
Social and Cultural Implications : Drug policy changes can have broader social and cultural implications. It is essential to consider the potential impact on communities, families, and vulnerable populations when formulating drug policies.

By examining different approaches to drug policy and studying the experiences of countries around the world, policymakers can gain valuable insights into the potential benefits and challenges associated with drug decriminalization and legalization.

Considerations and Caveats

As the debate on drug legalization continues, it is important to consider several key factors and potential concerns. While there are arguments both for and against drug legalization, it is essential to analyze the possible implications and challenges that may arise. This section explores three significant considerations and caveats surrounding the topic.

Balancing Individual Freedom and Public Safety

One of the main considerations in the debate on drug legalization is finding a balance between individual freedom and public safety. Advocates for drug legalization argue that individuals should have the freedom to make choices about their own bodies and that criminalizing drugs infringes upon personal liberties. They argue that the government should focus on harm reduction strategies and providing access to drug addiction treatment options rather than punitive measures.

On the other hand, opponents of drug legalization express concerns about the potential risks to public safety. They argue that legalizing drugs may lead to increased substance abuse, addiction rates, and associated social problems. Striking a balance between individual freedom and public safety is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration and evidence-based policies.

Potential Social and Cultural Implications

Drug legalization can have significant social and cultural implications. The normalization and increased availability of drugs may impact societal norms, especially among vulnerable populations. It is crucial to examine how drug legalization may influence perceptions of drug use and the overall fabric of society.

Furthermore, cultural factors play a role in shaping attitudes towards drug use and addiction. Different societies have varying beliefs, values, and traditions surrounding drug use. When considering drug legalization, it is essential to take into account the potential impact on cultural norms and the potential for shifts in societal behavior.

Addressing the Root Causes of Drug Use

A critical caveat in the discussion of drug legalization is the need to address the root causes of drug use. While some argue that legalization may help reduce drug-related crimes and violence, it is essential to recognize that drug addiction is often a symptom of underlying issues such as poverty, mental health concerns, and social inequality.

Merely legalizing drugs without addressing the underlying factors that contribute to drug use may not effectively address the problem. It is crucial to prioritize comprehensive drug policy reform that includes a focus on prevention, education, and access to drug addiction treatment options . By addressing the root causes, society can work towards reducing drug addiction rates and improving overall public health.

As the debate on drug legalization unfolds, it is vital to consider these considerations and caveats. Balancing the tension between individual freedom and public safety, understanding the potential social and cultural implications, and prioritizing efforts to address the root causes of drug use are crucial aspects of developing sound drug policies. By examining these factors, policymakers and society as a whole can make informed decisions regarding drug legalization.

In the ongoing debate on drug legalization, it is essential to explore different approaches and examine real-world examples to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Decriminalization and legalization are two distinct strategies when it comes to drug policy. Decriminalization typically involves reducing or eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession, treating it as a civil offense instead. This approach aims to prioritize public health and harm reduction rather than punishment.

On the other hand, legalization involves removing legal restrictions on drug production, distribution, and consumption. It allows for the regulation and taxation of drugs, similar to how alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Proponents argue that legalization can lead to improved public safety, quality control, and revenue generation.

Both decriminalization and legalization seek to address the negative consequences of drug prohibition. However, they differ in the extent of regulation and control over drug use and production. Each approach has its own set of advantages and challenges, which must be carefully considered.

Several countries have implemented various drug policies, providing valuable insights into the potential effects of different approaches. Exploring these case studies helps shed light on the complex issue of drug legalization.

Portugal : In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of all drugs. Instead of facing criminal charges, individuals caught with drugs are referred to a dissuasion commission that assesses their situation and determines appropriate responses, such as fines or referrals to treatment. This approach aimed to reduce drug-related harms and prioritize public health. Studies have shown positive outcomes, including decreased drug-related deaths, HIV transmission rates, and drug-related crime.
Uruguay : In 2013, Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize the production, sale, and consumption of marijuana. The government regulates and controls the entire process, from cultivation to distribution. The primary goals of this policy were to combat drug trafficking, reduce drug-related violence, and protect public health. While it is still relatively early to assess the long-term impacts, initial reports suggest positive outcomes, such as decreased illegal market activity and increased access to regulated and safer products.

Examining these case studies reveals valuable lessons that can inform the ongoing debate on drug legalization:

Focus on public health : Prioritizing public health and harm reduction is crucial. Policies that emphasize treatment, prevention, and education can yield positive results.
Regulation and control : Implementing strict regulations and quality control measures are vital to ensure the safety and efficacy of legalized drugs.
Addressing social factors : Drug use often stems from underlying social issues such as poverty, inequality, and lack of access to healthcare. Addressing these root causes is essential for comprehensive drug policy reform.

By examining different approaches and learning from real-world experiences, policymakers can make informed decisions regarding drug legalization. It is crucial to consider the potential benefits and challenges associated with each approach, with the ultimate goal of promoting public health and safety while addressing the complex issues surrounding drug use and addiction.

Pros and Cons of Legalising Drugs

Drug Legalization: Pro and Con

Should drugs be legalized? Legalization pros and cons

Start Your Journey with Us

Why all drugs should be legal. (Yes, even heroin.)

Prohibition has huge costs

Newsletter sign up Newsletter

We've come a long way since Reefer Madness . Over the past two decades, 16 states have de-criminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, and 22 have legalized it for medical purposes. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington went further, legalizing marijuana under state law for recreational purposes. Public attitudes toward marijuana have also changed; in a November 2013 Gallup Poll , 58 percent of Americans supported marijuana legalization.

Yet amidst these cultural and political shifts, American attitudes and U.S. policy toward other drugs have remained static. No state has decriminalized, medicalized, or legalized cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. And a recent poll suggests only about 10 percent of Americans favor legalization of cocaine or heroin. Many who advocate marijuana legalization draw a sharp distinction between marijuana and "hard drugs."

That's understandable: Different drugs do carry different risks, and the potential for serious harm from marijuana is less than for cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Marijuana, for example, appears incapable of causing a lethal overdose, but cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine can kill if taken in excess or under the wrong circumstances.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

But if the goal is to minimize harm — to people here and abroad — the right policy is to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana.

In fact, many legal goods cause serious harm, including death. In recent years, about 40 people per year have died from skiing or snowboarding accidents ; almost 800 from bicycle accidents; several thousand from drowning in swimming pools ; more than 20,000 per year from pharmaceuticals ; more than 30,000 annually from auto accidents ; and at least 38,000 from excessive alcohol use .

Few people want to ban these goods, mainly because while harmful when misused, they provide substantial benefit to most people in most circumstances.

The same condition holds for hard drugs. Media accounts focus on users who experience bad outcomes, since these are dramatic or newsworthy. Yet millions risk arrest, elevated prices, impurities, and the vagaries of black markets to purchase these goods, suggesting people do derive benefits from use.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

That means even if prohibition could eliminate drug use, at no cost, it would probably do more harm than good. Numerous moderate and responsible drug users would be worse off, while only a few abusive users would be better off.

And prohibition does, in fact, have huge costs, regardless of how harmful drugs might be.

First, a few Economics 101 basics: Prohibiting a good does not eliminate the market for that good. Prohibition may shrink the market, by raising costs and therefore price, but even under strongly enforced prohibitions, a substantial black market emerges in which production and use continue. And black markets generate numerous unwanted side effects.

Black markets increase violence because buyers and sellers can't resolve disputes with courts, lawyers, or arbitration, so they turn to guns instead. Black markets generate corruption, too, since participants have a greater incentive to bribe police, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards. They also inhibit quality control, which causes more accidental poisonings and overdoses.

What's more, prohibition creates health risks that wouldn't exist in a legal market. Because prohibition raises heroin prices, users have a greater incentive to inject because this offers a bigger bang for the buck. Plus, prohibition generates restrictions on the sale of clean needles (because this might "send the wrong message"). Many users therefore share contaminated needles, which transmit HIV, Hepatitis C, and other blood-borne diseases. In 2010, 8 percent of new HIV cases in the United States were attributed to IV drug use.

Prohibition enforcement also encourages infringements on civil liberties, such as no-knock warrants (which have killed dozens of innocent bystanders) and racial profiling (which generates much higher arrest rates for blacks than whites despite similar drug use rates). It also costs a lot to enforce prohibition, and it means we can't collect taxes on drugs; my estimates suggest U.S. governments could improve their budgets by at least $85 billion annually by legalizing — and taxing — all drugs. U.S. insistence that source countries outlaw drugs means increased violence and corruption there as well (think Columbia, Mexico, or Afghanistan).

The bottom line: Even if hard drugs carry greater health risks than marijuana, rationally, we can't ban them without comparing the harm from prohibition against the harms from drugs themselves. In a society that legalizes drugs, users face only the negatives of use. Under prohibition, they also risk arrest, fines, loss of professional licenses, and more. So prohibition unambiguously harms those who use despite prohibition.

It's also critical to analyze whether prohibition actually reduces drug use; if the effects are small, then prohibition is virtually all cost and no benefit.

On that question, available evidence is far from ideal, but none of it suggests that prohibition has a substantial impact on drug use. States and countries that decriminalize or medicalize see little or no increase in drug use. And differences in enforcement across time or place bear little correlation with uses. This evidence does not bear directly on what would occur under full legalization, since that might allow advertising and more efficient, large-scale production. But data on cirrhosis from repeal of U.S. Alcohol Prohibition suggest only a modest increase in alcohol consumption.

To the extent prohibition does reduce use drug use, the effect is likely smaller for hard drugs than for marijuana. That's because the demands for cocaine and heroin appear less responsive to price. From this perspective, the case is even stronger for legalizing cocaine or heroin than marijuana; for hard drugs, prohibition mainly raises the price, which increases the resources devoted to the black market while having minimal impact on use.

But perhaps the best reason to legalize hard drugs is that people who wish to consume them have the same liberty to determine their own well-being as those who consume alcohol, or marijuana, or anything else. In a free society, the presumption must always be that individuals, not government, get to decide what is in their own best interest.

The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

Douglas Husak and Peter de Marneffe, The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against , Cambridge University Press, 2005, 204pp., $18.99 (pbk), ISBN 0521546869.

Reviewed by William Hawk, James Madison University

In the United States the production, distribution and use of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are crimes subjecting the offender to imprisonment. The Legalization of Drugs , appearing in the series "For and Against" edited by R. G. Frey for Cambridge University Press, raises the seldom-asked philosophical question of the justification, if any, of imprisoning persons for drug offenses.

Douglas Husak questions the justification for punishing persons who use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. He develops a convincing argument that imprisonment is never morally justified for drug use. Put simply, incarceration is such a harsh penalty that drug use, generally harmless to others and less harmful to the user than commonly supposed, fails to justify it. Any legal scheme that punishes drug users to achieve another worthy goal, such as creating a disincentive to future drug users, violates principles of justice.

Peter de Marneffe contends that under some circumstances society is morally justified in punishing persons who produce and distribute heroin. He argues a theoretical point that anticipated rises in drug abuse and consequent effects on young people may justify keeping heroin production and distribution illegal. According to de Marneffe's analysis, however, harsh prison penalties currently imposed on drug offenders are unjustified.

The points of discord between Husak's and de Marneffe's positions are serious but not as telling as is their implicit agreement. Current legal practices and policies which lead to lengthy incarceration of those who produce, distribute and use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not, and cannot be, morally justified. Both arguments, against imprisoning drug users and for keeping heroin production illegal, merit a broad and careful reading.

The United States has erected an enormous legal structure involving prosecution and incarceration designed to prohibit a highly pleasurable, sometimes medically indicated and personally satisfying activity, namely using marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. At the same time, other pleasure-producing drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine, though legally regulated for the purposes of consumer safety and under-age consumption, can be purchased over the counter. As a result, while the health and safety risks of cigarettes may be greater than those proven to accompany marijuana, one can buy cigarettes from a vending machine and but go to prison for smoking marijuana. A rational legal system, according to Husak, demands a convincing, but as yet not forthcoming, explanation of why one pleasurable drug subjects users to the risk of imprisonment while the other is accommodated in restaurants.

Drug prohibitionists must face the problem that any "health risk" argument used to distinguish illicit drugs and subject offenders to prison sentences runs up against the known, yet tolerated, health risks of tobacco, as well as the additional health risks associated with incarceration. "Social costs" arguments targeting heroin or cocaine runs up against the known, yet tolerated, social costs of alcohol, as well as the additional social costs of incarceration. Even if one were to accept that illicit drugs were more harmful or exacted greater social costs than tobacco and alcohol (and the empirical studies referred to in the text do not generally support this thesis), that difference proves insufficient to justify imprisoning producers, distributors or especially users of illicit drugs.

Decriminalizing Drug Use. Douglas Husak presents a very carefully argued case for decriminalizing drug use. He begins his philosophical argument by clarifying the concepts and issues involved. To advocate the legalization of drugs calls for a legal system in which the production and sale of drugs are not criminal offenses. (p. 3) Criminalization of drugs makes the use of certain drugs a criminal offense, i.e. one deserving punishment. To argue for drug decriminalization, as Husak does, is not necessarily to argue for legalization of drugs . Husak entertains, but cautiously rejects the notion of a system where production and sale of drugs is illegal while use is not a crime. De Marneffe advocates such a system.

Punishing persons by incarceration demands justification. Since the state's use of punishment is a severe tool and incarceration is by its nature "degrading, demoralizing and dangerous" (p. 29) we must be able to provide "a compelling reason … to justify the infliction of punishment… ." (p. 34) Husak finds no compelling reason for imprisoning drug users. After considering four standard justifications for punishing drug users Husak concludes that "the arguments for criminalization are not sufficiently persuasive to justify the infliction of punishment."

Reasons to Criminalize Drug Use . 1) Drug users, it is claimed, should be punished in order to protect the health and well being of citizens . No doubt states are justified in protecting the health and well being of citizens. But does putting drug users in prison contribute to this worthy goal? Certainly not for those imprisoned. For those who might be deterred from using drugs the question is whether the drugs from which they are deterred by the threat of imprisonment actually pose a health risk. For one, Husak quotes research showing that currently illicit drugs do not obviously pose a greater health threat than alcohol or tobacco. For another, he quotes a statistic showing that approximately four times as many persons die annually from using prescribed medicines than die from using illegal drugs. In addition, one-fourth of all pack-a-day smokers lose ten to fifteen years of their lives but no one would entertain the idea of incarcerating smokers to further their health interests or in order to prevent non-smokers from beginning. In sum, Husak accepts that drug use poses health risks but contends that the risks are not greater than others that are socially accepted. Even if they were greater, imprisonment does not reduce, but compounds the health risks for prisoners.

2) Punishing drug users protects children . Husak here responds to de Marneffe's essay which focuses on potential drug abuse and promotes the welfare of children as a justification for keeping drug production and sale illegal. Husak finds punishing adolescent users a peculiar way to protect them. To punish one drug-using adolescent in order to prevent a non-using adolescent from using drugs is ineffective and also violates justice. Punishing adult users so that youth do not begin using drugs and do not suffer from neglect -- which is de Marneffe's position -- is not likely to prevent adolescents from becoming drug users, and even if it did, one would have to show that the harm prevented to the youth justifies imprisoning adults. Husak contends that punishing adults or youth, far from protecting youth, puts them at greater risk.

3) Some, e.g. former New York City mayor Guiliani, argue that punishing drug use prevents crime . Husak, conceding a connection between drug use and crime, turns the argument upside-down, showing how punishment increases rather than decreases crime. For one, criminalization of drugs forces the drug industry to settle disputes extra-legally. Secondly, drug decriminalization would likely lower drug costs thereby reducing economic crimes. Thirdly, to those who contend that illicit drugs may increase violence and aggression Husak responds that: a) empirical evidence does not support marijuana or heroin as causes of violence and b) empirical evidence does support alcohol, which is decriminalized, as leading to violence. Husak concludes "if we propose to ban those drugs that are implicated in criminal behavior, no drug would be a better candidate for criminalization than alcohol." (p. 70) Finally, punishing drug users likely increases crime rates since those imprisoned for drug use are released with greater tendencies and skills for future criminal activity.

4) Drug use ought to be punished because using drugs is immoral . In addition to standard philosophical objections to legal moralism, Husak contends that there is no good reason to think that recreational drug use is immoral. Drug use violates no rights. Other recreationally used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are not immoral. The only accounts according to which drug use is immoral are religiously based and generally not shared in the citizenry. Husak argues that legal moralism fails, and with it the attempts to justify imprisoning drug users because of health and well-being, protecting children, or reducing crime. Husak concludes, "If I am correct, prohibitionists are more clearly guilty of immorality than their opponents. The wrongfulness of recreational drug use, if it exists at all, pales against the immorality of punishing drug users." (p. 82)

Reasons to Decriminalize Drug Use. Husak's positive case for decriminalizing drug use begins with acknowledgement that drug use is or may be highly pleasurable. In addition, some drugs aid relaxation, others increase energy and some promote spiritual enlightenment or literary and artistic creativity. The simple fun and euphoria attendant to drug use should count for permitting it.

The fact that criminalization of drug use proves to be counter-productive provides Husak a set of final substantial reasons for decriminalizing use. Criminalizing drugs proves counter-productive along several different lines: 1) criminalization is aimed and selectively enforced against minorities, 2) public health risks increase because drugs are dealt on the street, 3) foreign policy is negatively affected by corrupt governments being supported solely because they support anti-drug policies, 4) a frank and open discussion about drug policy is impossible in the United States, 5) civil liberties are eroded by drug enforcement, 6) some government corruption stems from drug payoffs and 7) criminalization costs tens of billions of dollars per year.

Douglas Husak provides the conceptual clarity needed to work one's way through the various debates surrounding drug use and the law. He establishes a high threshold that must be met in order to justify the state's incarcerating someone. Having laid this groundwork Husak demonstrates that purported justifications for drug criminalization fail and that good reasons for decriminalizing drug use prevail. For persons who worry about what drug decriminalization means for children, Husak counsels that there is more to fear from prosecution and conviction of youth for using drugs than there is to fear from the drugs themselves.

Against Legalizing Drug Production and Distribution. Peter de Marneffe offers an argument against drug legalization . The argument itself is simple. If drugs are legalized, there will be more drug abuse. If there is more drug abuse that is bad. Drug abuse is sufficiently bad to justify making drug production and distribution illegal. Therefore, drugs should not be legalized. The weight of this argument is carried by the claim that the badness of drug abuse is sufficient to justify making drug production and sale illegal.

De Marneffe centers his argument on heroin. Heroin, he contends, is highly pleasurable but sharply depresses motivation to achieve worthwhile goals and meet responsibilities. Accordingly, children in an environment where heroin is legal will be subjected to neglect by heroin using parents and, if they themselves use heroin, they will be harmed by diminished motivation for achievement for the remainder of their lives. It is this later harm to the ambition and motivation of young people that, according to de Marneffe, justifies criminalizing heroin production and sale. As he puts it:

… the risk of lost opportunities that some individuals would bear as the result of heroin legalization justifies the risks of criminal liability and other burdens that heroin prohibition imposes on other individuals. The legalization of heroin would create a social environment -- call it the legalization environment -- in which some children would be at a substantially higher risk of irresponsible heroin abuse by their parents and in which some adolescents would be at a substantially higher risk of self-destructive heroin abuse. (p. 124)

Are the liberties of individual adult drug producers, distributors and users sacrificed? Yes, but this may be justified by de Marneffe's "burdens principle." According to the burdens principle, "the government violates a person's moral rights in adopting a policy that limits her liberty if and only if in adopting this policy the government imposes a burden on her that is substantially worse than the worst burden anyone would bear in the absence of this policy." (p. 159) According to this, de Marneffe claims that burdens on drug vendors or users may be justified by the prevention of harms to a particular individual or individuals. As he puts it:

What I claim in favor of heroin prohibition is that the reasons of at least one person to prefer her situation in a prohibition environment outweigh everyone else's reasons to prefer his or her situation in a legalization environment, assuming that the penalties are gradual and proportionate and other relevant conditions are met. (p. 161)

According to this view, the objective interest of a single adolescent in not losing ambition, motivation and drive justifies the imposition of burdens on other youth and adults who would prefer using drugs. Although Johnny might choose heroin use, his objective interest is for future motivation and ambition that is not harmed by heroin use.

De Marneffe's "burdens principle" seems to hold the whole society hostage to the objective liberty interests of one individual. Were this principle applied to drug producers or distributors who faced imprisonment it seems that imprisonment could not be justified. I suspect a concern for consistency here gives de Marneffe reason to make drug production and distribution illegal but without attaching harsh prison sentences for offenders. He advocates an environment where drugs are not legal, in order to protect youth against both abuse and their own choices that may cause them to become unmotivated, but recognizes that prison sentences are unjustified as a way to support such a system.

In The Legalization of Drugs the reader gets two interesting arguments. Douglas Husak makes a compelling case against punishing drug users. His position amounts to drug decriminalization with skepticism toward making drug production and sale illegal. On the other side, Peter de Marneffe justifies making drug production and sale illegal based upon the diminishment of future interests of young people. De Marneffe introduces a "burdens principle" which is likely much too strong a commitment to individual interests than could ever be realized in a civil society. In both instances, the reader is treated to arguments that effectively undermine current drug policy. The book provides philosophical argumentation that should stimulate a societal conversation about the justifiability of current drug laws.

Read our research on: Abortion | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.

An out-of-state customer purchases marijuana at a store in New York on March 31, 2021, when the state legalized recreational use of the drug.

With a growing number of states authorizing the use of marijuana, the public continues to broadly favor legalization of the drug for medical and recreational purposes.

A pie chart showing that just one-in-ten U.S. adults say marijuana should not be legal at all

An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say either that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use by adults (59%) or that it should be legal for medical use only (30%). Just one-in-ten (10%) say marijuana use should not be legal, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Oct. 10-16, 2022. These views are virtually unchanged since April 2021.

The new survey follows President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon people convicted of marijuana possession at the federal level and direct his administration to review how marijuana is classified under federal law. It was fielded before the Nov. 8 midterm elections, when two states legalized the use of marijuana for recreational purposes – joining 19 states and the District of Columbia , which had already done so.

Pew Research Center asked this question to track public views about the legal status of marijuana. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,098 adults from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Over the long term, there has been a steep rise in public support for marijuana legalization, as measured by a separate Gallup survey question that asks whether the use of marijuana should be made legal – without specifying whether it would be legalized for recreational or medical use. This year, 68% of adults say marijuana should be legal , matching the record-high support for legalization Gallup found in 2021.

There continue to be sizable age and partisan differences in Americans’ views about marijuana. While very small shares of adults of any age are completely opposed to the legalization of the drug, older adults are far less likely than younger ones to favor legalizing it for recreational purposes.

This is particularly the case among those ages 75 and older, just three-in-ten of whom say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use. Larger shares in every other age group – including 53% of those ages 65 to 74 – say the drug should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

A bar chart showing that Americans 75 and older are the least likely to say marijuana should be legal for recreational use

Republicans are more wary than Democrats about legalizing marijuana for recreational use: 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use, while an additional 39% say it should only be legal for medical use. By comparison, 73% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use; an additional 21% say it should be legal for medical use only.

Ideological differences are evident within each party. About four-in-ten conservative Republicans (37%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with a 60% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans.

Nearly two-thirds of conservative and moderate Democrats (63%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use. An overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say the same.

There also are racial and ethnic differences in views of legalizing marijuana. Roughly two-thirds of Black adults (68%) and six-in-ten White adults say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with smaller shares of Hispanic (49%) and Asian adults (48%).

Related: Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

In both parties, views of marijuana legalization vary by age

While Republicans and Democrats differ greatly on whether marijuana should be legal for medial and recreational use, there are also age divides within each party.

A chart showing that there are wide age differences in both parties in views of legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use

A 62% majority of Republicans ages 18 to 29 favor making marijuana legal for medical and recreational use, compared with 52% of those ages 30 to 49. Roughly four-in-ten Republicans ages 50 to 64 (41%) and 65 to 74 (38%) say marijuana should be legal for both purposes, as do 18% of those 75 and older.

Still, wide majorities of Republicans in all age groups favor legalizing marijuana for medical use. Even among Republicans 65 and older, just 17% say marijuana use should not be legal even for medical purposes.

While majorities of Democrats across all age groups support legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, older Democrats are less likely to say this. About half of Democrats ages 75 and older (51%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational purposes; larger shares of younger Democrats say the same. Still, only 8% of Democrats 75 and older think marijuana should not be legalized even for medical use – similar to the share of all other Democrats who say this.

Note: Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

Concern about drug addiction has declined in u.s., even in areas where fatal overdoses have risen the most, religious americans are less likely to endorse legal marijuana for recreational use, 6 facts about americans and marijuana, four-in-ten u.s. drug arrests in 2018 were for marijuana offenses – mostly possession, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Why Oregon's groundbreaking drug decriminalization experiment is coming to an end

Dave Davies

In 2020, voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs. Journalist E. Tammy Kim explains how and why public opinion has turned.

DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Dave Davies. In 2020, voters in Oregon overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. The initiative was accompanied by new investments in addiction treatment and support services. The move was hailed by national drug reform advocates, who've long condemned the so-called war on drugs as a self-defeating policy that filled prisons, disproportionately harmed the poor and communities of color, and failed to deter drug use. But 3 1/2 years later, public opinion has turned against the groundbreaking approach, and the state legislature has acted to restore criminal penalties for hard drugs. The state experienced rising overdose deaths and high rates of drug use, and open air drug use in streets, parks and camping areas unnerved many residents.

Our guest, journalist E. Tammy Kim, wrote about the Oregon experience in The New Yorker, speaking with activists, treatment providers, police, lawmakers and drug users, among others. Kim is a contributing writer for The New Yorker, covering labor and the workplace, arts and culture, poverty and politics, and the Koreas. She previously worked as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and a staff writer for Al-Jazeera America. Kim is an attorney who worked in New York for low-wage workers and families facing medical debt before entering journalism. Her January story in The New Yorker is titled, "A Drug-Decriminalization Fight Erupts In Oregon." Well, E. Tammy Kim, welcome to FRESH AIR.

E TAMMY KIM: Thank you so much. It's a pleasure.

DAVIES: So let's set the stage for this story. November 2020 - Oregon embarks on this dramatic decriminalization of hard drugs in small amounts. This was approved in a state-wide voter referendum. So it wasn't just legislature. The voters had their say. You wrote that this was inspired by a sense of desperation. Meaning what?

KIM: This came at a time, obviously, during the pandemic, but also right after the reckoning over the summer with Black Lives Matter's protests being the largest in our nation's history. People were thinking about drug use and the addiction crisis, the opioid crisis, in a new and different way. I think in Oregon, the way that played out was people were seeing rising rates of overdose deaths. Fentanyl was coming into the market. And the previous program, which was really sort of law enforcement-based program, as it has historically been in this country, wasn't working. And I think in combination with the sort of sense of the Black Lives Matter movement saying, let's reevaluate our relationship to law enforcement more generally, people were wanting to try something new. And the form that that took was Measure 110, which was a ballot initiative that was developed both by national harm reduction and sort of criminal justice advocates, but also local activists and organizations who were interested in a new approach to the war on drugs.

DAVIES: Right. Now, this didn't legalize hard drugs, per se, right? What exactly did it provide?

KIM: It didn't. It decriminalized, which essentially meant that it took away the sort of usual policing power around use, so public use of drugs, and possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. In Oregon, meth has always been sort of the most popular illicit drug on the street. But of course, like the rest of the country, opioids have come in very strong over the past decade or so. And then kind of in distinction to the Midwest and the Northeast, where fentanyl already a decade ago was sort of overtaking oxycodone and heroin, we saw this happening sort of right before the pandemic in Oregon. And so what Measure 110 did on the policing side was to say to the police, we're not going to arrest people anymore for possession. You're going to give them an option where they can pay a fine, or they can call a hotline and sort of submit to an encounter to get counseling around treatment.

DAVIES: Right. So you'd get a ticket and then you'd either pay $100 fine or make this call and get sort of an on-the-phone evaluation, so not a heavy burden.

KIM: That's correct.

DAVIES: Right. But there was more about - more to this than the enforcement change, right? There was also supposed to be additional funding - for what?

KIM: Exactly. So Measure 110, sort of taking a sort of bird's-eye view of it, has two big prongs. So one is this change in law enforcement, so the decriminalization prong. And the other prong was a massive infusion of money from recreational marijuana tax dollars, primarily, to fund a treatment and harm reduction infrastructure across the state. A curious thing about Oregon is, I think nationally, we really think of it as a very progressive place with really advanced social services, a welfare state that's quite developed. And yet Oregon has ranked towards the bottom - by some rankings, 49th in the country - in terms of access to behavioral and mental health services. So it was sort of starting from a place of being very behind in the ability of people who wanted to get out of addiction to seek that treatment. And this was going to cure that, was the plan.

DAVIES: Right. Anybody who knows folks who've suffered with this knows that it's not easy to find treatment when you need it, and sometimes you need it right away.

KIM: Absolutely.

DAVIES: When someone's ready, you want to be able to respond.

KIM: And you need it multiple times, usually, also.

DAVIES: Right, right. Now, in addition to traditional, you know, outpatient and inpatient treatment, you know, there was this new notion of what is called harm reduction. It's a different kind of activity to deal with this issue. You want to just explain what it means?

KIM: Yeah. So what we wanted - what I was doing in this story was sort of looking at what does it mean to get treatment? And on the treatment prong of Measure 110, what was the kind of evolution in the thinking and the science around what the money would fund? And as you just said, you know, I think there's this TV version of sort of what it looks like to get out of alcohol or drug use, and it's kind of a Betty Ford clinic - right? - where you check in to a residential center, and you're kind of separated from your family and friends. You do a 90-day, you know, session, let's say, and then you kind of get out and go on your way. That's representing actually quite a limited part of the treatment infrastructure.

And what we actually have and has developed over the past few decades is this kind of continuum of care, which looks at people who aren't yet ready to give up drug and alcohol use. They need instead a safe place to perhaps do those drugs. They need supplies so that they don't get sick. You know, I think the key example for this is the free needles or needle exchange programs, which came about really in the AIDS crisis to combat the transmission of AIDS, HIV and Hep C and you know, so - but in addition to that, now people are using different kinds of drugs, consuming drugs in different ways. And so harm reduction might be, for example, giving out cookers or pipes that are safe and have been sanitized for people. So this is all to say, like on the side of people who aren't yet ready to go into a recovery or treatment program, you want to reduce the harm to themselves and to others, and then also infuse services that are more along the kind of traditional path of treatment.

DAVIES: Right. And it's a less judgmental way to deal with people who have this issue, and it also connects them to treatment if they're ready, right? The idea is that you're talking to somebody, and somebody who knows how to get you somewhere if you really want to get into a rehab or something. You know, a lot of people know that Portland is a place where politics are progressive, and there's a lot of tolerance for unhoused people and people dealing with addiction. Things changed there. But the law was statewide, and you looked at a community called Medford in southwest Oregon. You want to just talk about what some of the developments were that were troubling to some folks, and we'll get into some of the reasons for them. So what was the experience, what arose there that created issues for citizens of Medford and Jackson County?

KIM: I think on the policing side, the police had always played a very important role in the treatment infrastructure, if we can call it that. So before Measure 110, police would make arrests for misdemeanors and felonies related to drugs, obviously, and some of those were for possession - simple possession by users. The way the police saw themselves was they would make those arrests, they would bring people to the county jail and at the jail as a kind of interface point for social services and at the courthouse, they saw themselves as funneling people into treatment. You know, I think on the other side, obviously, the critics of that would say, well, you were creating harm by - just by arresting people and putting them in jail. And the jail and the court system was never really a good place for people to get treatment. There's an old adage in recovery and addiction, which is, you know, you can't get better until you're ready and that, you know, you really need to do this voluntarily. And so there's always been in that kind of dynamic.

Another thing that was going on in Southern Oregon was a steep rise in homelessness. Obviously, we've seen this across the country through the hardship of the pandemic, the mental health strains, all sorts of different reasons why people were more visibly homeless, and then, of course, the arrival of fentanyl. So we had, you know, sort of this strained system, fentanyl coming in, which is incredibly addictive and incredibly cheap and incredibly deadly, and this, you know, rise of homelessness and a backlash against homelessness. And so, I think the way that Southern Oregon was then experiencing this huge policy change under Measure 110 was, hey, Measure 110 happened when all of these bad things were happening. Therefore, it seems like Measure 110 might have caused these bad things.

DAVIES: Right. Measure 110 being the referendum which provided for the decriminalization of hard drugs. We're going to take a break here. Let me reintroduce you.

We're speaking with E. Tammy Kim. She's a contributing writer for The New Yorker. Her January story is titled, "A Drug Decriminalization Fight Erupts In Oregon." We'll continue our conversation in just a moment. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MATT ULERY'S "GAVE PROOF")

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we're speaking with New Yorker contributing writer E. Tammy Kim about the end of Oregon's three-and-a-half year experiment with the decriminalization of the possession of hard drugs. She wrote a piece in January titled, "A Drug Decriminalization Fight Erupts In Oregon."

You mentioned that there was increasing encampments of unhoused people at a greenway there in the area, and police now, under the new rules, could not apprehend people for using drugs. And so people could do it openly. What did local citizens see that they found so troubling here?

KIM: That's correct. I think there was a kind of twinning in people's minds of homelessness and the sort of physical, you know, messiness of homelessness and drug use. And under the decriminalization of drugs in Oregon, people were then essentially not able to be arrested for using drugs in public. You know, it wasn't just that they couldn't possess drugs, but that they couldn't - it wasn't just that they were able to possess drugs in public and not be arrested, it was that they could essentially use drugs in public and not be arrested. And so that did lead to more encounters by sort of, you know, your average people, your average families who were experiencing public places with drugs and drug use.

You know, we know that drug use occurs in every socioeconomic stratum. And if you have a home, if you have a place to use drugs, you're not as vulnerable, obviously, to law enforcement. But if you're using drugs in public, you know, you can be policed, but you can also have really uncomfortable interactions with people who don't like to see it. And it's not surprising that, you know, parents who were walking by, say, a homeless encampment on the greenway in Medford, Ore., and saw people smoking fentanyl or smelled something strange or saw people who were really amped up on uppers like meth would then have a really strong feeling about, hey, I don't think decriminalization is working, and this is actually making me and my community feel less safe.

DAVIES: One point I believe you wrote that the government of Medford, I guess the City Council enacted a tough anti-camping ordinance, right? What happened there?

KIM: So yeah, the Medford City Council and the Jackson County commissioners in this area, they wanted to crack down on what they called basically unauthorized camping. And what this was was a sort of combination of people who were gathering in public because they had lost housing or people who had already been homeless but were gathering in new areas because of displacement from wildfires. There were - there was a number of reasons why people were sort of moving around but that their homelessness was becoming more visible to people. And so at the same time that the police felt that they couldn't really interact with people in terms of their drug use, they were interacting with people much more in terms of their homelessness and basically prohibiting them from sleeping outside, from gathering in large groups. And this did, in a couple of instances, lead to observed harms. Activists in the area attribute the death of a man who was sleeping outside to this kind of policing.

DAVIES: Who froze to death, right?

KIM: Who froze to death. Yeah.

DAVIES: Tough weather. Yeah.

KIM: He was found in the morning.

DAVIES: There were complaints about crime. Any way to evaluate that? Was there more crime with the growth of these encampments and, you know, the open-air drug use?

KIM: One of the reasons it was hard to evaluate the asserted rise in crime rates was because before the decriminalization of drugs, a lot of drug arrests weren't simply drug arrests, per se. They were drug arrests that were made in connection with other sorts of crimes like, you know, theft or, you know, other sorts of, like, small, petty, kind of usually economic crimes. And I think one of the things that people were saying after the passage of Measure 110 was that there were kind of more people on the street who felt comfortable doing drugs and who also felt comfortable committing acts of petty theft and violence. It was difficult for me to sort of disaggregate, at least in the data that I was looking at, about, you know, whether that was true or whether that was a perception or whether the police were being sort of more vigilant about documenting those crimes as opposed to drug crimes now that they weren't working on those cases anymore.

DAVIES: You know, you just used the phrase petty theft and violence. Some might wonder, what is petty violence?

KIM: I guess I would group some of this under perceptions of disorder. So a thing that I heard repeatedly, like in Medford and Portland, Bend, Eugene, Salem, these different cities across the state was there all these people on meth who are kind of running around naked, or they are waving knives around, so this sort of thing where it wasn't necessarily that people were being assaulted, but they felt threatened by really disturbing things they were seeing on the streets. And I don't mean to say that that isn't disturbing. I think that there was a lot of harm caused by what people saw, you know, with this increased use in public.

DAVIES: You know, one of the things I liked about your story was its exploration of a debate among various folks who, in good faith, want to help drug users get clean and want to help deal with this problem in a constructive way. But there are different beliefs about what works and what doesn't. Maybe we should just start with an organization called Stabbin Wagon - its director, Melissa Jones, who sounded like she was a pretty compelling figure. Tell us what the organization and she were up to.

KIM: Melissa Jones and Stabbin Wagon are on - if we have a sort of gradient of services, are on kind of the more radical and political edge of harm reduction. And it's a group that basically owes its - all of its funding to Measure 110, to this experiment in Oregon. So for me, it was interesting to look at because it was part of the promise of Measure 110, which was that we're going to try new things. And Melissa Jones and Stabbin Wagon were trying new things in this community.

Most of what people saw of Stabbin Wagon's work was the distribution of safe use supplies and safe sex supplies and in-person outreach, delivery of meals through a white cargo van that Melissa and her staff kind of drive around town and park near where people are unhoused. And so, you know, I think for people who benefited from these services, it was a real godsend. And they felt very seen and heard by these people who weren't there to judge their drug use. But for more conservative people in town, they saw this as a representation of a very misguided social program, which is, hey, you're enabling drug use. Why are these state dollars that we voted for to fund treatment going to essentially helping people stay in their use?

DAVIES: Now, there's another point of view that you're right about, some who are more traditional treatment providers who think that addicts need some pressure to enter treatment. I mean, that pressure can come from, obviously, circumstances in their own lives, from loved ones and relatives, but also the threat of jail, where the - where there are alternatives to going to jail, particularly treatment alternatives - can be effective. Give us a sense of how that debate played out here.

KIM: Another provider that I talk about in my story is Sommer Wolcott, who is the director of OnTrack, which is a sort of large social services agency in southern Oregon. And Sommer is not at all an opponent of harm reduction. There is harm reduction sort of built into the treatment and recovery services that her organization provides. However, in some ways, her approach is quite traditional. I mean, the end goal for her interaction with their clients is recovery, to come out of addiction, to come out of drug use. They also partner with the local police in outreach to homeless people and to people who are using on the streets.

So, for example, OnTrack employees, who themselves are usually recovered people who are using drugs, will go out with Medford police officers and approach people who are using and say, hey, do you want to get into treatment? What are your needs? You know, do you need housing, this sort of thing? And, you know, again, the supply of social services is very limited, but they would sort of make that offer and try to do counseling.

And so - but there - you know, there was this contrast between what OnTrack was doing and what groups like Stabbin Wagon were doing. And I think from the OnTrack perspective, they have seen thousands of clients go through treatment and recovery. They believe it can be done. And they just felt that they needed more resources to do that. And they, too, were sort of confused about, well, where is the Measure 110 money going, and is it over-privileging the distribution, for example, of safe use supplies when really we should be having more sober homes, more recovery housing, more inpatient treatment and outpatient treatment?

DAVIES: We're going to take another break here. Let me reintroduce you. We're speaking with E. Tammy Kim. She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker. Her January story is titled, "A Drug Decriminalization Fight Erupts In Oregon." She'll be back to talk more after this short break. I'm Dave Davies, and this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Dave Davies. We're speaking with New Yorker contributing writer E. Tammy Kim about the end of Oregon's 3-1/2-year experiment with decriminalizing the possession of hard drugs, including fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamine. The move to decriminalize was overwhelmingly approved by Oregon voters in November 2020, but high rates of overdose deaths and open-air drug use in streets, parks and makeshift camping areas soured public opinion, resulting in legislative action to restore criminal penalties. Other aspects of the initiative, including new investments in drug treatment and related social services, are preserved.

Tammy Kim's January article in The New Yorker is titled "A Drug Decriminalization Fight Erupts In Oregon." It seems that although this - you know, this measure which decriminalized hard drugs and provided for investments in treatment, it took quite a while for that funding to get going for reasons that are actually pretty understandable, I guess, right?

KIM: Right. That is perhaps the poison pill of this experiment in Oregon, which is that decriminalization went into effect right away. And the amped-up treatment infrastructure took about a year and a half to get going, essentially. So it took more than a year for the promised funding to begin rolling out to organizations across Oregon.

Part of that was this sort of bureaucratic issue that the organization responsible for doling out that money was also responsible for dealing with COVID. It was the Oregon Health Authority, and they were incredibly overwhelmed. There was under - it was very difficult to hire also for drug and alcohol counselors. So many things that we kind of know about because of the pandemic economy were undermining the ability of this agency to implement this program.

I think another thing that is sort of telling, just kind of thinking about this as a public policy experiment, is this is a program that came to be because of voters in our most sort of direct democratic process of a ballot initiative. However, what that meant also was that there wasn't necessarily institutional buy-in or a kind of institutional advocate for the program. So, you know, many government officials, including at the Oregon Health Authority, would sort of explain this to me as, hey, we didn't, you know, want this. We didn't ask for this. It was foisted upon us by the voters. And now we're kind of rushing to implement this. And it's not fast. It goes slow.

DAVIES: Oh, that's so interesting. So, yeah, like, if it's the governor's pet project, then he gears it up. In this case, she gears it up. But if it's the voters telling you to do it, then it's a slow start. I mean, I will say, having covered government for a long time, even if there is funding and will, it just takes a while for government programs to get up 'cause there are all of these rules that are established to prevent, you know, self-dealing and cronyism and waste. And it just - and, you know, you got to give everybody their chance to have their say. And there's competitive bidding. And it just - it all takes a while under the best of circumstances. And with COVID, it was going to be slow.

DAVIES: You write that the money distributed through this measure was both a lot and not very much. What did you mean?

KIM: About $300 million over a period of time was allocated from the marijuana taxes towards treatment and recovery. Sounds like a huge amount of money, but obviously that needs to be distributed statewide. There were also allocations to tribes. So, you know, just kind of jurisdictional, like, everybody gets a piece, but it's very spread out.

Then on top of that, if you're thinking about inpatient or outpatient treatment, these are very expensive programs. And Medicaid will often cover parts of that, but the sort of health parts of that. In addition, you also need to figure out where people are going to live and what they're going to eat while they're going through these programs. And so if you're thinking about kind of a holistic response and kind of taking person who is trying to get out of addiction from, you know, zero to 10, this is very costly. And so I think, you know, there were huge expectations placed on this experiment. And yet it was an experiment that kind of wasn't funded to address all of those hopes and dreams.

DAVIES: You refer to a December 2023 marathon hearing in the legislature, which essentially became a debate over the merits of the decriminalization measure. What complaints did lawmakers hear about it? And then let's talk about what was offered in its defense. First of all, those who favored reversing this move, what did they tell them?

KIM: Most of the people who were speaking to lawmakers against Measure 110 talked about public use and about perceived increases in dangerous drugs. Certainly, business owners also were talking about, you know, people sleeping in front of their properties and getting rowdy in front of those properties, harassing, you know, patrons of their businesses.

And so what was interesting is, I think especially listening to the people testify from Portland - was that part of that is also just the fact that Portland's downtown has been vacated since the pandemic. You know, there are no office workers there anymore. And so it has this sort of vacant quality. And that is going to be - you know, those empty spaces then have been filled by people without homes. And so, again, we're just seeing kind of like this lab experiment be infiltrated by all of the factors that weren't sort of anticipated at the time.

DAVIES: And those who wanted to defend the decriminalization initiative, what did they say in its defense?

KIM: The defenders had generally two arguments. One is that the treatment and recovery and harm reduction infrastructure is expanding and working and that they were seeing it every day. And there are countless examples of people in new detox facilities, recovery homes, in new treatment programs and new family counseling programs where those - you know, they had great stories of their clients.

And then I think the second prong is the racial justice element. Oregon is a fairly white state. However, the disproportionality statistics around drug enforcement arrests, incarceration, to some extent, those are, you know, very skewed against Black, Latino, Native people in particular. And there was a call, like, from a man named Larry Turner, who I quote, who has been doing racial justice work in Portland for a very long time in the African American community, saying, why have we given the drug war decades to do its thing? And now two, three years into this great experiment, we're going to already cut the cord. You know, we need more time to see this out. It is working for our community. And if we reverse it, we're going to go back to the kinds of racial disproportionality that we saw before.

DAVIES: So legislative leaders said, you know, we have to have some change, and a package of legislation was passed. Let's talk about what it does. I mean, what does it do in terms of, you know, rules for possession of these hard drugs?

KIM: The bills - there are two bills that were just passed by the Oregon Legislature. And one of them essentially recriminalizes. And so we're going back to the pre-Measure 110 status quo, where it is a misdemeanor to possess small amounts of illicit drugs. This sets a jail term of about six months. But there is a kind of opt-in program that counties can decide on that's called, like, deflection or diversion, where if somebody says, I'm going to go into treatment and kind of follows through with a treatment and recovery regimen, then the misdemeanor can be wiped out and they don't do jail time. And so that is the kind of, you know, harm reduction promise built into it. However, again, that part of this law is not mandatory. And so it's kind of customizable county by county.

The other bill in this package derives $211 million additional dollars, which is quite a lot to - again, to beef up the treatment infrastructure. This re-criminalization doesn't do away with the treatment and recovery part of Measure 110. Exactly. And so the funding that was going to providers will stay in place in the $211 million newly allocated will support that. And so, you know of course, always, like, devil in the details, we have to see how this is going to be implemented. I think advocates of the 2020 experiment are devastated and feel like this is just going back to the traditional drug war. But lawmakers have been taking pains to say, no, this is not exactly the same. We're just trying to do this in a more efficient way that, you know, lets law enforcement in again to help people on their way to treatment.

DAVIES: We're going to take another break here. Let me reintroduce you.

We are speaking with E. Tammy Kim. She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker. Her January story is titled, "A Drug Decriminalization Fight Erupts In Oregon." We'll continue our conversation in just a moment. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF PAQUITO D'RIVERA QUINTET'S "CONTRADANZA")

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we're speaking with New Yorker contributing writer E. Tammy Kim about the end of Oregon's three-and-a-half year experiment with decriminalizing the possession of hard drugs, including fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamine, that was approved by voters in a 2020 referendum. It's now being reversed due to action by state lawmakers.

You know, the Drug Policy Alliance, which is a national organization which heavily supported the decriminalization initiative in 2020 and has criticized this, has advocated changes in a lot of different states. And I think the idea was that success in Oregon would inspire more change in other states across the country. What do you think the impact will be in other states now that we're considering changes?

KIM: This is a huge setback for the harm reduction and sort of drug reform movements. Yes, Oregon was supposed to sort of pave the way for similar changes in other places. You know, we were - the movement was eyeing California and Maine and Vermont. I think most of those efforts now are going to have a very hard time getting off the ground because of the negative press coverage and the sort of general perception that what was tried in Oregon did not work. The Oregon model also is often referred to as kind of being based on the Portugal model. You know, Portugal being a country where there has been a long history of pretty positive experiment with decriminalization and infusion of services. And so, you know, I think now that people think, well, decriminalizing just, you know, sort of isn't going to work anywhere, we probably won't see as many proposals in other states.

DAVIES: You know, police officers have been frustrated for many years with arresting people for minor drug offenses and spending a lot of time going to court and then nothing really seems to change. You talked to some police officers and prosecutors. What sense did you get of how they feel about criminal penalties for possession?

KIM: The police officers I spoke to were not enthusiastic about policing for a minor possession. You know, they obviously want to be engaged with more significant crimes. And that is the kind of demand from the community that, you know, obviously, they're responding to calls for major robberies and physical assaults, etc. However, they felt offended that they no longer had much of a role to play after decriminalization went into effect. Because, again, I think they have, in many cases, seen instances where they apprehended people, took them to jail and those people got clean and then later sort of thanked the police and the law enforcement infrastructure for that help.

DAVIES: You know, these debates about these harm reduction strategies, which, you know, try to meet drug users where they are as opposed to other methods occurring in all kinds of communities. I'm in Philadelphia, where there's a big battle here over one neighborhood that has a lot of open-air drug markets.

And one of the things that struck me as I've observed the debate is that sometimes I would see harm reduction advocates make a very persuasive case that what they're doing, which is, you know, providing, you know, clean needles and safe injection, is going to keep users alive. It's going to help them get more of them into treatment. But it's definitely going to reduce harm to the users, but they don't really address the community that feels besieged, whose kids have to, you know, walk through needles on the sidewalk and step over people, you know, shooting up and these kinds of things. And sometimes, community advocates, you know, talk about what they're seeing, but they don't really address what - you know, what will be good for these folks who are afflicted with addiction. I don't know what the question here is, but it's just - it seems a really difficult debate.

KIM: Yeah. I think you've honed in on such a key - kind of the emotional key to this whole question. And for my reporting, I went to Vancouver, British Columbia, which is - kind of has long been a sort of beacon of harm reduction. But - and so there's all sorts of practices there that are backed by science and public health researchers, like having safe injection sites, like having drug users who are involved in policy-making, decriminalizing drugs. They did that in 2022. But that doesn't mean that the streets are, you know, sunny, and everybody has a good middle-class job, and there's no, you know, problems. I mean, there's going to be a collision on the street because people are poor, because people are living in desperate circumstances, because people have mental health issues, all sorts of things. And when you throw drugs into that mix, it's a very difficult encounter.

I think your question highlights the need for strong institutional leadership, whether that comes from provincial or state, county or national leaders, to say, yes, we need to respect the human rights of drug users, and harm reduction is science and policy and so - and, you know, so are these sorts of treatment mechanisms. At the same time, we need to figure out how to respect people's desired quality of life on the streets where they live and walk. And, you know, I think a lot of this actually boils down to the question of homelessness policy and housing policy, because, again, it's this question of where are people who use drugs supposed to use drugs 'cause they are going to continue to use drugs?

DAVIES: Well, E. Tammy Kim, thank you so much for speaking with us.

KIM: Thank you. Really appreciate your time.

DAVIES: E. Tammy Kim is a contributing writer for The New Yorker. Her January story is titled "A Drug-Decriminalization Fight Erupts In Oregon." Coming up, Kevin Whitehead remembers jazz and classical and pop singer Sarah Vaughan on the 100th anniversary of her birth. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF ROBBEN FORD AND BILL EVANS' "PIXIES")

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Program Finder
Admissions Services
Course Directory
Academic Calendar
Hybrid Campus
Lecture Series
Convocation
Strategy and Development
Implementation and Impact
Integrity and Oversight
In the School
In the Field
In Baltimore
Resources for Practitioners
Articles & News Releases
In The News
Statements & Announcements
At a Glance
Student Life
Strategic Priorities
Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
What is Public Health?

The Evidence—and Lack Thereof—About Cannabis

Research is still needed on cannabis’s risks and benefits.

Lindsay Smith Rogers

Although the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law, medicinal and recreational cannabis use has become increasingly widespread.

Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical cannabis, while 23 states and D.C. have legalized recreational use. Cannabis legalization has benefits, such as removing the product from the illegal market so it can be taxed and regulated, but science is still trying to catch up as social norms evolve and different products become available.

In this Q&A, adapted from the August 25 episode of Public Health On Call , Lindsay Smith Rogers talks with Johannes Thrul, PhD, MS , associate professor of Mental Health , about cannabis as medicine, potential risks involved with its use, and what research is showing about its safety and efficacy.

Do you think medicinal cannabis paved the way for legalization of recreational use?

The momentum has been clear for a few years now. California was the first to legalize it for medical reasons [in 1996]. Washington and Colorado were the first states to legalize recreational use back in 2012. You see one state after another changing their laws, and over time, you see a change in social norms. It's clear from the national surveys that people are becoming more and more in favor of cannabis legalization. That started with medical use, and has now continued into recreational use.

But there is a murky differentiation between medical and recreational cannabis. I think a lot of people are using cannabis to self-medicate. It's not like a medication you get prescribed for a very narrow symptom or a specific disease. Anyone with a medical cannabis prescription, or who meets the age limit for recreational cannabis, can purchase it. Then what they use it for is really all over the place—maybe because it makes them feel good, or because it helps them deal with certain symptoms, diseases, and disorders.

Does cannabis have viable medicinal uses?

The evidence is mixed at this point. There hasn’t been a lot of funding going into testing cannabis in a rigorous way. There is more evidence for certain indications than for others, like CBD for seizures—one of the first indications that cannabis was approved for. And THC has been used effectively for things like nausea and appetite for people with cancer.

There are other indications where the evidence is a lot more mixed. For example, pain—one of the main reasons that people report for using cannabis. When we talk to patients, they say cannabis improved their quality of life. In the big studies that have been done so far, there are some indications from animal models that cannabis might help [with pain]. When we look at human studies, it's very much a mixed bag.

And, when we say cannabis, in a way it's a misnomer because cannabis is so many things. We have different cannabinoids and different concentrations of different cannabinoids. The main cannabinoids that are being studied are THC and CBD, but there are dozens of other minor cannabinoids and terpenes in cannabis products, all of varying concentrations. And then you also have a lot of different routes of administration available. You can smoke, vape, take edibles, use tinctures and topicals. When you think about the explosion of all of the different combinations of different products and different routes of administration, it tells you how complicated it gets to study this in a rigorous way. You almost need a randomized trial for every single one of those and then for every single indication.

What do we know about the risks of marijuana use?

Cannabis use disorder is a legitimate disorder in the DSM. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who develop a problematic use of cannabis. We know there are risks for mental health consequences. The evidence is probably the strongest that if you have a family history of psychosis or schizophrenia, using cannabis early in adolescence is not the best idea. We know cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms and potentially longer lasting problems with psychosis and schizophrenia.

It is hard to study, because you also don't know if people are medicating early negative symptoms of schizophrenia. They wouldn't necessarily have a diagnosis yet, but maybe cannabis helps them to deal with negative symptoms, and then they develop psychosis. There is also some evidence that there could be something going on with the impact of cannabis on the developing brain that could prime you to be at greater risk of using other substances later down the road, or finding the use of other substances more reinforcing.

What benefits do you see to legalization?

When we look at the public health landscape and the effect of legislation, in this case legalization, one of the big benefits is taking cannabis out of the underground illegal market. Taking cannabis out of that particular space is a great idea. You're taking it out of the illegal market and giving it to legitimate businesses where there is going to be oversight and testing of products, so you know what you're getting. And these products undergo quality control and are labeled. Those labels so far are a bit variable, but at least we're getting there. If you're picking up cannabis at the street corner, you have no idea what's in it.

And we know that drug laws in general have been used to criminalize communities of color and minorities. Legalizing cannabis [can help] reduce the overpolicing of these populations.

What big questions about cannabis would you most like to see answered?

We know there are certain, most-often-mentioned conditions that people are already using medical cannabis for: pain, insomnia, anxiety, and PTSD. We really need to improve the evidence base for those. I think clinical trials for different cannabis products for those conditions are warranted.

Another question is, now that the states are getting more tax revenue from cannabis sales, what are they doing with that money? If you look at tobacco legislation, for example, certain states have required that those funds get used for research on those particular issues. To me, that would be a very good use of the tax revenue that is now coming in. We know, for example, that there’s a lot more tax revenue now that Maryland has legalized recreational use. Maryland could really step up here and help provide some of that evidence.

Are there studies looking into the risks you mentioned?

Large national studies are done every year or every other year to collect data, so we already have a pretty good sense of the prevalence of cannabis use disorder. Obviously, we'll keep tracking that to see if those numbers increase, for example, in states that are legalizing. But, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see an uptick in cannabis use disorder a month after legalization. The evidence from states that have legalized it has not demonstrated that we might all of a sudden see an increase in psychosis or in cannabis use disorder. This happens slowly over time with a change in social norms and availability, and potentially also with a change in marketing. And, with increasing use of an addictive substance, you will see over time a potential increase in problematic use and then also an increase in use disorder.

If you're interested in seeing if cannabis is right for you, is this something you can talk to your doctor about?

I think your mileage may vary there with how much your doctor is comfortable and knows about it. It's still relatively fringe. That will very much depend on who you talk to. But I think as providers and professionals, everybody needs to learn more about this, because patients are going to ask no matter what.

Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast , an editor for Expert Insights , and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Could Medical Marijuana Help Address the Opioid Epidemic?

Policy Is Public Health

Medical Marijuana Laws Linked to Health and Labor Supply Benefits in Older Adults

How Dangerous is Dengue?

photo of young adults on bikes taking a selfie

Research Identifies Characteristics of Cities That Would Support Young People’s Mental Health

Alumni Spotlight: Junrui Di, PhD '19

Sahil, a 7-month-old child suffering from diarrhea, lies in a bed at the district hospital on May 21, 2022 in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Child Diarrhea Has a Cheap and Easy Fix—Why Isn’t It Reaching Patients?

People hold up signs in Union Square during a demonstration against the Supreme Court on July 4, 2022 in New York City. The Supreme Court's June 24th decision in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health case overturned the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade case, removing a federal right to an abortion.

How Abortion Trigger Laws Impact Mental Health

News U.S. News Life Politics Business Science/Health Good News World Tech Entertainment Sports
Shows Schedule Show List
Documentaries In Real Life Next Level Bellingcat All Docs
Investigations
About Team Viewer Spotlight Hotline Support

Overwhelming majority of US adults say cannabis should be legalized

The research also found that only 11% of Americans said the drug should not be legal for any reason.

Americans appear to continue to see a need for change with U.S. cannabis laws. New research data from Pew found that an overwhelming 88% of U.S. adults say that cannabis should be legalized for medical or recreational use.

Pew found that, in an environment where most Americans live in a state that has legalized the plant and products made from it for certain reasons, having exposure to at least one dispensary in their communities has opened more people up to the idea that total legalization would be OK, it seems.

The survey split up choices in various ways based on beliefs about how the plant should be used and was conducted between Jan. 16 and Jan. 21.

In survey data out this week, Pew found that almost 57% of Americans say they believe cannabis should be legal for both recreational and medical reasons, while 32% said cannabis should only be legalized for medical use.

FDA recommends reclassifying marijuana; says it has medicinal purpose

As a Schedule I drug, marijuana is currently in the same category as some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and methamphetamine.

One interesting aspect of the data is how Americans view the impact legalizing cannabis for recreational use might have on safety and encouraging the use of other substances.

29% of Americans said they believe cannabis increases the use of other drugs, while about the same — at 27% — said they believe it would decrease the use of other substances including cocaine, fentanyl and heroin. 42% said cannabis would have no impact on the use of other substances.

And when it comes to beliefs about safety in the community, 34% of Americans surveyed said legalizing cannabis makes communities less safe while 21% said legalizing cannabis makes communities safer.

And, beliefs about the legalization of cannabis were impacted by politics — the majority, 64%, of those who identify as a Democrat, or who lean towards being Democratic said the believe legalizing cannabis is good for local economies, and 58% said cannabis legalization creates a more fair justice system.

41% of Republican respondents said legalizing cannabis for recreational use has a positive impact on local economies, and 27% said legalization has a positive impact on the criminal justice system.

Those views were altered when age was factored in, with a majority 57% of Republicans between 18 to 29 years old who said they believe cannabis should be legalized for recreations and medical use — 52% of Republicans between 30 to 49 years old said the same.

Pew found that "wide majorities" of Republicans of all age groups favors cannabis legalization for medical use.

Across all racial and ethnic groups, Pew found that about 4 out of 10 U.S. adults believe cannabis legalization for recreational use makes the U.S. criminal justice system fairer.

For the study, Pew Research Center uses randomly selected U.S. adults who participate in self-administered web surveys. Pew said it used an oversample non-Hispanic Black men, Hispanic men and non-Hispanic Asian adults to "provide more precise" estimate of "opinions and experiences of these smaller demographic subgroups."

Latest in Cannabis

Vice president kamala harris holds roundtable on marijuana policies.

Vice President Kamala Harris reignited the call to decriminalize pot and move to expunge federal marijuana charges.

Lawmakers press DOJ for information on marijuana farms linked to China

Illegal marijuana operations with ties to China have reportedly been discovered in numerous states, including California, Maine and Oregon.

Texas immigration law SB4: Is it unconstitutional?

An attorney defending Texas’ plans told a panel of federal judges that the law may have "went too far," but that will be up the court to decide.

How Beyoncé's cross-genre album opened doors for Black country artists

Beyoncé’s honey-coated touch has reignited the conversation of country’s forgotten history while clearing a place for rising country stars of color.

Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Students are often asked to write an essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Introduction.

Drugs are substances that can change the way your body and mind work. Some people think drugs should be legal, but there are many reasons why this is not a good idea.

Health Risks

Drugs are harmful to your body. They can damage your brain, heart, and other important organs. If drugs become legal, more people might use them and get sick or even die.

Drugs can make you addicted. This means you can’t stop using them, even if you want to. If drugs are legal, more people could become addicted and their lives could be ruined.

Drugs often lead to crime. People who use drugs might steal to pay for them. If drugs are legal, crime might increase.

Drugs can hurt society. People who use drugs often can’t work or take care of their families. If drugs are legal, this could hurt our communities.

In conclusion, drugs should not be legal because they are harmful to your health, can make you addicted, lead to crime, and hurt society. It’s important to say no to drugs.

250 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Drugs should not be legalized due to many reasons. These include health issues, addiction, crime, and social problems. Let’s discuss these points in detail.

Health Problems

Drugs are harmful to our bodies. They can damage the brain, heart, and other important organs. Overdose can even cause death. If drugs become legal, more people might start using them, leading to more health problems.

Drugs are addictive. They make you want more and more, even if you know they are bad for you. This can make it hard for people to stop using drugs, even if they want to. Legalizing drugs could lead to more people becoming addicted.

Drugs often lead to crime. People who use drugs might steal to get money to buy more drugs. They might also get involved in violence. If drugs are legal, these crimes could increase.

Social Problems

Drugs can cause problems in families and friendships. People who use drugs might neglect their responsibilities, like work or school. They might also have trouble getting along with others. If drugs are legal, these social problems could become more common.

In conclusion, drugs should not be legalized. They cause health problems, addiction, crime, and social problems. It’s important to keep drugs illegal to protect our health and society.

500 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Drugs can be harmful and dangerous. They can hurt our bodies and minds, and can even lead to death. Some people think that making drugs legal would solve many problems, but this isn’t a good idea. Here’s why.

The Risk to Health

Drugs are bad for your health. They can damage your brain, heart, and other important parts of your body. Even if drugs were legal, they would still be dangerous. People who use drugs can get sick more often, and can even die because of them. We should not make it easier for people to hurt themselves by making drugs legal.

Addiction Problems

Drugs can make people addicted. This means they can’t stop using drugs, even when they want to. Addiction can ruin people’s lives. They might lose their jobs, their families, and their homes. If drugs were legal, more people might get addicted. This would be a big problem for our society.

Effect on Society

Drugs can also harm our society. People who use drugs can cause problems for others. They might commit crimes, like stealing, to get money for drugs. They might also hurt other people, or forget to take care of their children. If drugs were legal, these problems could get worse.

Increased Drug Use

If drugs were legal, more people might start using them. This is because people might think that drugs are safe if they are legal. But this is not true. Drugs are always dangerous, no matter if they are legal or not. We should not encourage more people to use drugs by making them legal.

In conclusion, drugs should not be legal. They are bad for our health, can cause addiction, harm our society, and could lead to more people using drugs. Instead of making drugs legal, we should focus on helping people who are addicted to drugs. We should also teach young people about the dangers of drugs, so they can make good choices. This is the best way to protect our society and keep everyone healthy and safe.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Why Drugs Are Bad
Essay on Why Dress Code Is Bad
Essay on Why Dogs Are Man’s Best Friend

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

The Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Abortion Is Not Settled Law

In an black-and-white photo illustration, nine abortion pills are arranged on a grid.

By Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw

Ms. Murray is a law professor at New York University. Ms. Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer.

In his majority opinion in the case overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the high court was finally settling the vexed abortion debate by returning the “authority to regulate abortion” to the “people and their elected representatives.”

Despite these assurances, less than two years after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, abortion is back at the Supreme Court. In the next month, the justices will hear arguments in two high-stakes cases that may shape the future of access to medication abortion and to lifesaving care for pregnancy emergencies. These cases make clear that Dobbs did not settle the question of abortion in America — instead, it generated a new slate of questions. One of those questions involves the interaction of existing legal rules with the concept of fetal personhood — the view, held by many in the anti-abortion movement, that a fetus is a person entitled to the same rights and protections as any other person.

The first case , scheduled for argument on Tuesday, F.D.A. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, is a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s protocols for approving and regulating mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortions. An anti-abortion physicians’ group argues that the F.D.A. acted unlawfully when it relaxed existing restrictions on the use and distribution of mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. In 2016, the agency implemented changes that allowed the use of mifepristone up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven; reduced the number of required in-person visits for dispensing the drug from three to one; and allowed the drug to be prescribed by individuals like nurse practitioners. In 2021, it eliminated the in-person visit requirement, clearing the way for the drug to be dispensed by mail. The physicians’ group has urged the court to throw out those regulations and reinstate the previous, more restrictive regulations surrounding the drug — a ruling that could affect access to the drug in every state, regardless of the state’s abortion politics.

The second case, scheduled for argument on April 24, involves the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (known by doctors and health policymakers as EMTALA ), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide patients, including pregnant patients, with stabilizing care or transfer to a hospital that can provide such care. At issue is the law’s interaction with state laws that severely restrict abortion, like an Idaho law that bans abortion except in cases of rape or incest and circumstances where abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Although the Idaho law limits the provision of abortion care to circumstances where death is imminent, the federal government argues that under EMTALA and basic principles of federal supremacy, pregnant patients experiencing emergencies at federally funded hospitals in Idaho are entitled to abortion care, even if they are not in danger of imminent death.

These cases may be framed in the technical jargon of administrative law and federal pre-emption doctrine, but both cases involve incredibly high-stakes issues for the lives and health of pregnant persons — and offer the court an opportunity to shape the landscape of abortion access in the post-Roe era.

These two cases may also give the court a chance to seed new ground for fetal personhood. Woven throughout both cases are arguments that gesture toward the view that a fetus is a person.

If that is the case, the legal rules that would typically hold sway in these cases might not apply. If these questions must account for the rights and entitlements of the fetus, the entire calculus is upended.

In this new scenario, the issue is not simply whether EMTALA’s protections for pregnant patients pre-empt Idaho’s abortion ban, but rather which set of interests — the patient’s or the fetus’s — should be prioritized in the contest between state and federal law. Likewise, the analysis of F.D.A. regulatory protocols is entirely different if one of the arguments is that the drug to be regulated may be used to end a life.

Neither case presents the justices with a clear opportunity to endorse the notion of fetal personhood — but such claims are lurking beneath the surface. The Idaho abortion ban is called the Defense of Life Act, and in its first bill introduced in 2024, the Idaho Legislature proposed replacing the term “fetus” with “preborn child” in existing Idaho law. In its briefs before the court, Idaho continues to beat the drum of fetal personhood, insisting that EMTALA protects the unborn — rather than pregnant women who need abortions during health emergencies.

According to the state, nothing in EMTALA imposes an obligation to provide stabilizing abortion care for pregnant women. Rather, the law “actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.” In the mifepristone case, advocates referred to fetuses as “unborn children,” while the district judge in Texas who invalidated F.D.A. approval of the drug described it as one that “starves the unborn human until death.”

Fetal personhood language is in ascent throughout the country. In a recent decision , the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a wrongful-death suit for the destruction of frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization, or I.V.F. — embryos that the court characterized as “extrauterine children.”

Less discussed but as worrisome is a recent oral argument at the Florida Supreme Court concerning a proposed ballot initiative intended to enshrine a right to reproductive freedom in the state’s Constitution. In considering the proposed initiative, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court repeatedly peppered Nathan Forrester, the senior deputy solicitor general who was representing the state, with questions about whether the state recognized the fetus as a person under the Florida Constitution. The point was plain: If the fetus was a person, then the proposed ballot initiative, and its protections for reproductive rights, would change the fetus’s rights under the law, raising constitutional questions.

As these cases make clear, the drive toward fetal personhood goes beyond simply recasting abortion as homicide. If the fetus is a person, any act that involves reproduction may implicate fetal rights. Fetal personhood thus has strong potential to raise questions about access to abortion, contraception and various forms of assisted reproductive technology, including I.V.F.

In response to the shifting landscape of reproductive rights, President Biden has pledged to “restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.” Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were far from perfect; they afforded states significant leeway to impose onerous restrictions on abortion, making meaningful access an empty promise for many women and families of limited means. But the two decisions reflected a constitutional vision that, at least in theory, protected the liberty to make certain intimate choices — including choices surrounding if, when and how to become a parent.

Under the logic of Roe and Casey, the enforceability of EMTALA, the F.D.A.’s power to regulate mifepristone and access to I.V.F. weren’t in question. But in the post-Dobbs landscape, all bets are off. We no longer live in a world in which a shared conception of constitutional liberty makes a ban on I.V.F. or certain forms of contraception beyond the pale.

Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “ Strict Scrutiny ,” is a co-author of “ The Trump Indictments : The Historic Charging Documents With Commentary.”

Kate Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “Strict Scrutiny.” She served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Richard Posner.

IMAGES

"Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett
Should All Drugs Be Legalized Essay Example
Why Soft Drugs should be Legalised Essay Example
Persuasive essay on legalizing all drugs
Should Drugs Be Legalized?: Tricks To Prevent A Resolution From Being
Should Drugs be Legalized

VIDEO

Comparison: What Would You Legalize?
SHOULD DRUGS BE LEGAL ?

COMMENTS

Should drugs be legalized?
Essay. Incensed by the steadily growing number of deaths, crime and corruption created by illicit drug trade and use in the recent years, a number of persons drawn from both the government and the private sector have been calling for the legalization of drugs to curb the problems associated with the abuse and trade in drugs such as cocaine ...
Should drugs be legalized? Legalization pros and cons
Pros and cons of legalization of drugs. These are some of the most commonly argued pros of legalization: Government would see the revenues boosted due to the money collected from taxing drugs. Health and safety controls on these substances could be implemented, making recreational drugs less dangerous. Facilitate access for medicinal use.
Should Drugs Be Legalized?
Drugs should be legalized. There are numerous arguments for drug legalization. Criminal prohibition of drugs has not eliminated or substantially reduced drug use. The drug war has cost society more than drug abuse itself. Costs include the $16 billion the federal government alone spent to fight drugs in 1998. Of this $16 billion, $10.5 billion ...
Should the United States Decriminalize the Possession of Drugs?
The citizens of Washington, D.C., voted to decriminalize psilocybin, the organic compound active in psychedelic mushrooms. Oregon voters approved two drug-related initiatives. One decriminalized ...
The World's View on Drugs Is Changing. Which Side Are You On?
Produced by 'The Argument'. Medical marijuana is now legal in more than half of the country. The cities of Denver, Seattle, Washington and Oakland, Calif., have also decriminalized psilocybin ...
Drug Legalization?: Time for a real debate
Time for a real debate. Whether Bill Clinton "inhaled" when trying marijuana as a college student was about the closest the last presidential campaign came to addressing the drug issue. The ...
"Should Drugs Be Legalized?" by William Bennett
Topic: Drugs Words: 825 Pages: 3. The war against drugs in the United States has reached a new level. Such an outcome is conditional upon the recent measures that politicians are discussing. More specifically, they are related to the emergence of an idea to legalize drug consumption in order to decrease the number of drug addicts in the long run.
Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated in its Jan. 6, 1995 paper titled "Against Drug Prohibition": "The best evidence of prohibition's failure is the government's current war on drugs. This war, instead of employing a strategy of prevention, research, education and social programs designed to address problems such as ...
Argumentative Essay On Legalization Of Drugs
Argumentative Essay On Legalization Of Drugs. 1468 Words6 Pages. In recent years, one of the worldwide trending topics has been the issue of whether all drugs should be legalised or not. There are advantages and disadvantages to the issue of legalising drugs that cannot be ignored. The following essay will discuss in detail all the positive ...
Should Drugs Be Legalized? Pros and Cons
Economic Benefits. One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is the potential for significant economic benefits. Legalizing drugs can create new revenue streams through taxation and regulation. The legal drug market can generate substantial tax revenue, which can be directed towards public services, education, healthcare, and ...
Should Drugs Be Legalized Essay
It seems that drugs should be legalized because, "the existing evidence suggests that net costs for drugs are higher under probation-substantially higher in some cases" (Miron, 839). Miron is proposing that prohibition leads to significantly high prices for drugs which creates incentives for suppliers to develop a black market and ...
The Controversial Debate: Should Drugs Be Legalized?
The question of whether drugs should be legalized is a complex and multifaceted issue. While proponents argue for economic benefits and personal freedom, opponents stress the potential public ...
Why all drugs should be legal. (Yes, even heroin.)
Why all drugs should be legal. (Yes, even heroin.) Prohibition has huge costs. By The Week Staff. last updated 10 January 2015. We've come a long way since Reefer Madness. Over the past two ...
Should Drugs Be Legalized Essay
Legalization will always come with a risk in health and threat to society. Decriminalization could lead to an increase drug users and deaths by overdosing without seeking proper treatment. The danger to youth while alcohol and marijuana are legal, could also give an opportunity to experiment and try illegal drugs.
The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against
To advocate the legalization of drugs calls for a legal system in which the production and sale of drugs are not criminal offenses. (p. 3) Criminalization of drugs makes the use of certain drugs a criminal offense, i.e. one deserving punishment. To argue for drug decriminalization, as Husak does, is not necessarily to argue for legalization of ...
Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or
Over the long term, there has been a steep rise in public support for marijuana legalization, as measured by a separate Gallup survey question that asks whether the use of marijuana should be made legal - without specifying whether it would be legalized for recreational or medical use.This year, 68% of adults say marijuana should be legal, matching the record-high support for legalization ...
Argumentative Essay: Should Drugs Be Legalized?
Argumentative Essay: Should Drugs Be Legalized? Over the years, the idea about legalizing drugs has always been a discussion. Although we use the general term, there was no specific type of "drug" mentioned in these arguments. It is obvious that some are more harmful than others, but overall, each drug could be as addicting than any other.
Why Oregon's groundbreaking drug decriminalization experiment is ...
This is FRESH AIR. I'm Dave Davies. In 2020, voters in Oregon overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including fentanyl, heroin ...
Should we Legalize Drugs?
Bentham's view. According to the utilitarian view on the issue of legalizing of drugs, it is not right to completely abolish the use of all drugs. This is because of the benefits of some drugs such as pot compared to the harmful effects of the same. However, some drugs such as cocaine which have no value to the society can be abolished.
Oregon Is Recriminalizing Drugs. Here's What Portland Learned
April 1, 2024. When Oregon embarked on a landmark plan three years ago to decriminalize hard drugs, it wagered that a focus on treatment over punishment would create a new model for drug policy ...
Should Drugs Be Legalized
Recently, people being calling that they have freedom to do what the want—using drugs, and proposing legalizing using drugs. This essay will discuss drug legalization issues only in America by giving valid data and considerate suggestion to explain why researcher believes drug should be legalized in the U.S. Drug can lead to multiple social ...
Risks and Benefits of Legalized Cannabis
Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical cannabis, while 23 states and D.C. have legalized recreational use. Cannabis legalization has benefits, such as removing the product from the illegal market so it can be taxed and regulated, but science is still trying to catch up as social norms evolve and different products ...
Most Americans support cannabis legalization for medical, recreational
Most Americans — 88 percent — think cannabis should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a recently published Pew Research Center survey. Close to six out of 10 Americans ...
Overwhelming majority of US adults say cannabis should be legalized
The research also found that only 11% of Americans said the drug should not be legal for any reason. Americans appear to continue to see a need for change with U.S. cannabis laws. New research data from Pew found that an overwhelming 88% of U.S. adults say that cannabis should be legalized for medical or recreational use.
Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized for Students
In conclusion, drugs should not be legalized. They cause health problems, addiction, crime, and social problems. It's important to keep drugs illegal to protect our health and society. 500 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized Introduction. Drugs can be harmful and dangerous. They can hurt our bodies and minds, and can even lead to ...
Supreme Court hears its biggest abortion case since the fall of Roe
The challenged policies also allowed patients to take the drug in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, instead of seven, obtain it without making multiple in-person appointments with a doctor, and ...
Why Abortion Is Back at the Supreme Court
Wade, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the high court was finally settling the vexed abortion debate by returning the "authority to regulate abortion" to the "people and their elected ...
Should All Student Athletes Be Drug Tested Essay
Should All Student Athletes Be Drug Tested Essay. 685 Words3 Pages. Charleigh Mendenall Mrs. Hefner/ Mrs. Davidson English 9-1 22 MAR 2024 Title All student athletes should be drug tested because drugs are not always good, especially if they're in a sport. Taking drugs can slow down their body and make them run out of breath sooner.

Should drugs be legalized? Essay

Should drugs be legalized? Legalization pros and cons

Public health problem

History of prohibition of drugs

Should drugs be legalized?

List of recreational drugs

Pros and cons of legalization of drugs

Voting results

Join the debate

Report Abuse and Offensive language

Posting Comment

Error Posting Comment

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Drug Legalization?: Time for a real debate

“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William Bennett

Should Drugs Be Legalized? Pros and Cons

The Debate on Drug Legalization

Introduction to the Controversy

Understanding the Arguments

Pros of Drug Legalization

Economic Benefits

Reduction in Crime

Regulation and Quality Control

Cons of Drug Legalization

Potential Increase in Drug Use

Public Health Concerns

Impact on Society

Examining Different Approaches

Decriminalization vs. Legalization

Case Studies: Countries with Different Drug Policies

Lessons Learned

Considerations and Caveats

Balancing Individual Freedom and Public Safety

Potential Social and Cultural Implications

Addressing the Root Causes of Drug Use

Related posts

Start Your Journey with Us

Why all drugs should be legal. (Yes, even heroin.)

Subscribe to The Week

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

Regions & Countries

In both parties, views of marijuana legalization vary by age

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

Why Oregon's groundbreaking drug decriminalization experiment is coming to an end

The Evidence—and Lack Thereof—About Cannabis

Related Content

How Dangerous is Dengue?

Research Identifies Characteristics of Cities That Would Support Young People’s Mental Health

Alumni Spotlight: Junrui Di, PhD '19

Child Diarrhea Has a Cheap and Easy Fix—Why Isn’t It Reaching Patients?

How Abortion Trigger Laws Impact Mental Health

Overwhelming majority of US adults say cannabis should be legalized

FDA recommends reclassifying marijuana; says it has medicinal purpose

Latest in Cannabis

Lawmakers press DOJ for information on marijuana farms linked to China

Top Stories

Texas immigration law SB4: Is it unconstitutional?

How Beyoncé's cross-genre album opened doors for Black country artists

Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

100 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Health Risks

250 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

Health Problems

Social Problems

500 Words Essay on Why Drugs Should Not Be Legalized

The Risk to Health

Addiction Problems

Effect on Society

Increased Drug Use

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Abortion Is Not Settled Law

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS