Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user, in the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs, neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. Drugs should remain illegal to minimize these effects of drug use.

In light of the recent passing of a bill banning the over the counter trafficking of Pseudoephedrine, one must aptly debate this topic. With other industrialized nations allowing more lax policies on drugs such as Marijuana, those in the United States who use drugs have taken heed. They have noticed freedoms granted in those countries such as Canada. However, the fact of the matter is that allowing drugs to be used freely affects others as well: siblings, infants, and fetuses. Also, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must allow a person to use an illegal subtance at their will.

Drug use negatively impacts the economy in the form of users missing work and doing shoddy work.

A state cannot tolerate or be involved with the distribution of substances the use of which is considered immoral by much of the population.

Recreational use of certain drugs is unhealthy and dangerous for the user's body. Therefore, it cannot be produced or distributed with the help of the state, because the goal of the state is to protect citizens' health and not to expose them to risk.

If currently illegal drugs were legalized, dealers would invent new, more dangerous and addictive drugs in order to maintain their profit flow.

The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the 'Gateway' or 'Stepping Stone' theory).

Once legalized, corporations would advertise and promote addictive drugs to increase profit. This is exemplified by the currently legal drugs tobacco and alcohol, which are arguably far less pleasurable than other illegal drugs, yet far more popular currently, seemingly because they are legal.

The legalization of recreational drugs (particularly marijuana) would undermine efforts to reduce or eliminate tobacco smoking by adults and youth, which some parties are trying to ultimately make illegal.

If drugs were legalized, the companies that manufacture and market them would be sued, as Big Tobacco has been sued in the United States.

If currently illegal drugs are legalized, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have to be shut down, meaning that all health and safety restrictions on foods and drugs will be eliminated. Massive epidemics of diseases, overdoses and accidental drug interactions will occur. reference

There is a potential difficulty in enforcement of DUI laws should prohibition be ended. Clearly, driving under the influence of marijuana would be illegal, but there is as of yet no "stone-alyzer" like the breathalyzer used to check blood-alcohol levels.

Drugs are addictive. Hence, they essentially rob the user of free will. A drug user can not make an informed and rational decision whether to continue using drugs because the use of the drug eliminates that user's ability to think rationally.

When discussing the 'War on Drugs' many pro-legalisation campaigners argue the failings of prohibition but is legalisation the answer? We can look at America's failings with prohibition of alcohol but which drug that is now freely available causes more harm than any other? Yes of course, it's alcohol. More social and health issues are caused by this 'safe' drug even with heavily restricted sales. Do these restrictions prevent young people accessing alcohol and binge drinking, clearly not. So legalise drugs, restrict their sale to juveniles and watch and weep as access to damaging and harmful drugs leads us to a nation where we have young adults suffering psychosis, long-term memory loss, heart problems etc etc. Visit your late night pharmacy and wait for one of the kids at the bus-stop to saunter over with a tenner and ask "You couldn't get us a gram of heroin and three syringes please Mister?" That's the reality of legalisation.

some are really deadly and need to be prohibited

The War on Drugs disproportionately affects the poor and members of racial and ethnic minorities (in the United States). 1, 2, 3

The War on Drugs increases the profit margin in the sale of drugs, hence, drug legalization will decrease organized and disorganized crime. Furthermore, black market drug sales are not taxed; legalizing drugs and bringing sales into mainstream channels has the potential to increase tax revenue.

The War on Drugs leads to police corruption, by injecting huge profits into the black market. This inevitably leads to bribery. 1, 2

Governmental agencies use taxpayer funds to build support for the War on Drugs. See here for an explanation of public funding being secretly paid to TV corporations in exchange for the placement of anti-drug messages on certain television shows. Secretive propaganda is always morally wrong and duplicitous.

Drug legalization will enable users to be certain that they are receiving the correct drug. Currently, drugs are often laced with adulterants for various reasons (to aid in trafficking, to increase the effects, etc.). Often, these adulterants are the cause of the primary dangers of use of the drug (as, for example, with Ecstacy). In addition, drug users can not know the purity of such drugs as heroin or cocaine; often overdoses are a result of underestimating the purity. These dangers would be eliminated if drugs were legalized and packages purchased were clearly marked with the purity of the ingredients, as well as a complete list of which ingredients were present.

Certain drugs that are illegal, such as marijuana have proven to be much safer than some legal drugs, such as alcohol. Marijuana is not physically addictive and has virtually no lethal overdose, unlike alcohol. If it were legalized it may help treat alcoholism, since more may use marijuana as a substitute. Also, in the future strictly law-abiding people who feel like they need a fix, but think alcohol is too dangerous will have an alternative so legalizing marijuana may make alcohol use decrease. Since it is far less addictive and far less dangerous this would be a good thing.

Due to potential legal and societal consequences (either real or imagined), many drug users avoid seeking medical help when it is needed, whether in the case of addiction or overdose. Many drug users are afraid to call 911 during an overdose situation due to fear of legal repercussions.

The War on Drugs is hypocritical because only certain drugs are targeted. Other drugs, such as alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are legal (in most parts of the world), yet cause many more problems than currently illegal drugs. Even aspirin is, in many ways, more dangerous than currently illegal drugs. (See here or here for death statistics and here or here for addiction statistics) (Armentano 234-240)

If the goal of a state is to protect citizens' health and well-being, drugs should be legalized so that their purity can be monitored (see harm reduction). The health of citizens is not best served by prohibiting drugs; this only increases risk and harm, and reduces health and well-being. The War on Drugs, on the other hand, places non-users' friends and loved ones in jail. Hence, the War on Drugs does have clear and obvious harmful effects on third parties.

Drug use is a victimless crime and hence, should be legal.

The War on Drugs has led to a decrease in civil liberties. Previously illegal searches and seizures, confiscations, wiretaps, and other police actions have been legitimized out of a desire to use them against drug smugglers or dealers. 1, 2, 3, 4

Hemp has environmental uses such as in the production of paper, which would decrease the rate that trees are being cut down. Marijuana criminalization has led the government to prohibit its use even for this. Drug legalization would prevent any government excuse to ban the industrial use of hemp. The drug war primarily helps the synthetic-fibre, wood pulp, petrochemical, and pharmochemical industries because they profit from hemp substitutes which are frequently less useful than hemp itself. 1

Other countries which have experimented with varying degrees of legalization have had positive results.
1, 2, 3

Drug use is a victimless crime and hence, is unenforceable: without a victim to report the occurrence of a crime, law enforcement personnel can not know of every individual instance of the performance of a crime; they are not able to convict the perpetrators of the crimes that they do not know occurred. Therefore, drug use should be legal so that the deleterious effects can be minimized (see harm reduction). reference

The Drug War began for racist reasons, such as the spread of largely false rumors of the use of cocaine as an incitement to the rape of white women by black men, the seduction of white women by Chinese opium-smokers and violent behavior by Mexicans. In contrast, during this same period, the use of Laudanum (a tincture of opium and alcohol) was widely accepted by the population; the majority of users of laudanum were wealthy or middle-classed caucasions. The only differences between opium and laudanum were the method of ingestion and the ethnicity of the users. (See Drug Prohibition in the 20th century)

In many countries drugs law are very severe. In Singapore you may be hanged for possessing more than a certain amount of cannabis. In the USA, as explored in the book Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser, many people convicted of marijuana trafficking are serving life sentences without parole, a higher sentence than that received by most murderers in the USA. In the UK cocaine and heroin dealers often serve longer sentences than rapists. Possession of a gun is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment, which possession of cocaine, heroin or ecstasy is punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment. Supplying (or possessing with intent to supply) cocaine, heroin or ecstasy is punishable by a maximum life sentence, and supplying cannabis is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment, much more severe than the penalties for illegally suplying guns. In fact the maximum punishment for membership of proscribed terrorist organisations (like Al Qaeda) in Britain is ten years in jail, less than for supplying marijuana.

The prohibition against drug use has boosted black market research on finding new, more powerful drugs that can be transported easier and more safely than existing ones. Because they are more powerful, a smaller amount can be profitable, as well as more dangerous and addictive than older drugs. Hence, drug prohibition has fueled the refinement of heroin (from much less addictive precursors) and the invention of crack cocaine (a cheaper, more addictive and more dangerous derivative of cocaine).

Drug dealers will sell to anyone, including children. Merchants who legally sell alcohol and tobacco are not allowed to sell to children. Many high school students report that it is easier to obtain blanket illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. Hence, legalizing drugs will help keep more dangerous and addictive drugs from minors, for whom the deleterious effects are greater. reference

The current blanket prohibition of both hard and soft drugs (compare ultra-addictive and dangerous heroin to relatively benign marijuana) lumps both in the same category in the minds of impressionable children. Drug dealers stand to make greater profit off hard drugs, and so will attempt to convince users to switch from soft to hard drugs. Separating the markets through legalization will prevent this. See this to compare the numbers between the Netherlands (where the hard and soft drugs markets are separated) to the United States (where they are not).

The United States, where drug laws are strictly enforced, has high rates of drug use as well as an astronomical number of its own citizens in jail. 1, 2, resulting indirectly in prison overcrowding and the early release of violent offenders.

The illegality of drugs means the profits from drug sales (and they are very profitable) go to criminal cartels who use them to fund other crimes.

There is substantial anecdotal evidence that certain serotonergic psychedelics such as LSD and Psilocybin are effective in treating cluster headaches. Due to the prohibition of these substances, legitimate medical research in these areas is very difficult.

The revelation that Rush Limbaugh had been addicted to prescription drugs and that he was going into treatment led to accusations of selective enforcement on the part of the government. Some feel that the message that was sent was that the abuse of drugs was a crime unless the person was politically powerful or a celebrity.

http://dnkqkp10.com <a href="http://dnkqkp11.com&q uot; >dnkqkp11</a> <a href='http://dnkqkp12.com&# 039; >dnkqkp12</a> [URL='http://dnkqkp13.com&# 039; ]dnkqkp13[/URL] <a href=http://dnkqkp14.com >dnkqkp14</a> [URL=http://dnkqkp15.com ]dnkqkp15[/URL]