Given the extent of harm which the illicit drugs industry has not only upon those individuals which suffer from addiction, but also upon broader society as a whole, calls to legalize the business may seem absurd.
But as long as drugs are taken by an estimated two hundred million people worldwide (refer article), calls for new approaches, including legalization, will continue to be made and should be given due consideration.
Last week’s call by The Economist magazine, where they ran a cover feature calling for the legalization of the entire industry, is just the latest example of these.
The Economist’s plan
In brief, the magazine argues that governments should adopt the following approach:
(a) legalize both consumption and production of illicit drugs;
(b) tax and regulate the trade, with differing levels of taxation being applied according to the relative harm of each drug;
(c) redirect funding saved from enforcement efforts toward public education and treatment programs; and
(d) continue to ban the sale of drugs to minors.
Naturally, it is possible to legalize the act of consumption of illicit drugs without legalizing their production or trafficking, and indeed this is the approach which I would support (see below).
But for now, lets consider legalization of the entire trade – production, distribution and consumption.
Arguments for legalization of the trade
Proponents of a liberal approach would argue that legalization of the drug trade would help to:
(1) stimulate the creation of a somewhat legitimate industry, which in turn may reduce the extent to which the trade is controlled by organized crime gangs, thus helping to reduce the level of flow on crime, such as murder and thuggery, which is often associated with the trade;
(2) (assuming the legitimate industry referred to above could be created) reduce the extent to which otherwise law abiding users stand at the mercy of those who feed their addiction;
(3) (again assuming the creation of a legitimate industry) rid the trade of it’s ‘pot luck’ nature, where users cannot be certain about exactly what is contained within the substance with which they are taking or where it is coming from;
(4) reduce the degree of reluctance on behalf of drug users to seek help for their addition;
(5) allow the creation of safe injecting houses, which would eliminate the risks associated with use of dirty needles and enable easy access to emergency services if required;
(6) take away part of the ‘thrill factor’ which is commonly associated with experimentation of an illegal product;
(7) allow resources currently spent on law enforcement to be reallocated toward programs aimed at treating addition as well as public education programs about drug use; and
(8) reduce the extent of injury and death on the part of law enforcement officers involved in efforts to crack down on producers and distribution chains; and
(9) eliminate the need to slap a criminal record on otherwise law abiding citizens, particularly those who only experiment with ‘soft’ drugs, such as marijuana.
With respect to the last point, criminal records can make it difficult to secure employment and other opportunities, and can lead to a nasty spiral. Not to mention the lessons to which young people are exposed in a prison environment.
Arguments against legalization
In response, critics of legalization may argue that it:
(1) sends the wrong message with respect to the seriousness of either drug use or any form of involvement with the drug trade;
(2) may encourage additional consumption if the extra supply from legalized producers lead to a fall in street price;
(3) takes away the ability of law enforcement to confiscate large stashes and prevent them from hitting the street; and
(4) does not in any way guarantee the creation of a (relatively) legitimate industry, and even if such an industry did develop, the prospect of gangsters being driven from the industry completely is highly unlikely.
My view
In terms of the consumption side of the equation, I feel that the benefits of allowing users to seek help without fear of prosecution and to use safe injecting houses outweighs the costs of any message which legalized consumption may send.
Those with a drug problem should receive help, not criminal records or jail time.
In terms of the supply side, I can appreciate the benefits associated with trade out of the hands of criminal gangs if that could be achieved. Nevertheless, given well justified concerns about the genuine legitimacy of any new producers that emerge, I just can’t bring myself to support any proposal under which the production and trafficking of substances which cause so much harm is deemed to be a legitimate, legal business activity.
What do you think?
Recent Comments