Position Statements and Resolutions Published: It would expand the use of drugs.
It refers to governmental programs intended to suppress the consumption of certain recreational drugs. The War on Drugs utilizes several techniques to achieve its goal of eliminating recreational drug use: Drugs deemed socially, religiously, medically or politically unfit for recreational use are frequently banned.
From a blanket prohibition suppressing all use, to permitting certain amounts for personal use, the legalization of marijuana fights different fights in different countries.
It required sellers to obtain a license. Blanket prohibition was not the intention. The law passed quickly and with little debate. There was some legal wrangling over the issue after it was passed. The people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs.
The judicial system did not accept, at first, that being arrested in possession of drugs was a tax violation because it must have come from an unlicensed source because there were no licensesthereby avoiding taxes.
Thus, the federal government did have the right to regulate the ingestion of drugs. Prohibition must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. Countries have a responsibility to respect individual free will and the right of self-determination.
The immorality of marijuana use can only be based on one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs.
The War on Drugs serves the immediate interests of politicians. Legal prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming drugs, it does not stop trafficants from producing and selling it. The price of the final product increases to abnormally high values because of the black market status, which together with the powerful effects of drug addiction causes users to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction.
Critics of the War on Drugs advocate the partial or complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, combined with a system of regulation, as happens with alcohol and prescription drugs.
By providing legal supplies of currently illegal drugs the price will fall, leading to a collapse in the illegal drug industry, and a reduction in crimes committed by both drug suppliers and users.
They also argue that the reduction in the price will lead to little, if any, growth in drug addiction, due to the inelasticity of demand. Some even state that in a strictly regulated market, drug use may fall overall, by removing the marketing activities of the illegal drug industry.
It is not worthwhile for a law to forbid people from willingly exposing their own bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating or bungee-jumping.
Obesity is a national epidemic, killing millions every year, but the government has no right to regulate how much citizens eat. Drug users exercise free will when they chose to use drugs; a person has the right to give up his or her own freedom. A Government does not have the right to dictate them.
No drug eliminates free will.
It is possible to quit using any drug. Many banned drugs are significantly less deleterious to free will than legal alcohol or tobacco. Severe physiological addiction has been demonstrated for tobacco stronger than cocainebut no strong physiological addiction has been shown for marijuana.
Legalize marijuana and reduce health care costs by reducing the probability of overdoses and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug through standardization of drug purity by state-sponsored production and sale. There is no clear and obvious third party harm. Such examples are caused by related activities that can be illegal without blanket prohibition.
For example, driving while intoxicated is illegal, while drinking alcohol without driving is not. If drugs were legalized, the companies that manufacture and market them would be sued, such as cigarette companies have been exposed to lawsuits.
Legalization of drugs would work to increase liability on producers forcing health standards. Legalization would allow greater regulation.
Cigarettes come with warnings. Alcoholic beverages are clearly marked with the amount of alcohol. Currently legal drugs contain a listing of all active and inactive ingredients.
Illegal drugs could be sold legally with ingredients lists, warnings and purity levels clearly marked.Nov 07, · In the case of the most serious drugs the risk of addiction can be high. In the case of addition, it is arguable that drug use no longer becomes a matter of personal choice but a disease.
The Argument against Drug Prohibition - The failure of prohibition to prevent consumption of illicit drugs shows that existing policies do not metin2sell.coms: 3.
AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DECRIMINALIZATION Kurt L. Schmoke* [The addict] is denied the medical care he urgently needs; open, above-board sources. 3 Arguments for and Against Legalizing Marijuana some of the convincing arguments for why legalization makes sense.
data is that it swings both ways in the argument over legalization.
The arguments in favor of legalizing the use of all narcotic and stimulant drugs are twofold: philosophical and pragmatic. Neither argument is negligible, but both are mistaken, I believe, and both miss the point.
"Arguments Against the Legalization of Drugs," Campuses Without Drugs International, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA Brown, Dr. Lee, Dir. of Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Eight Myths About Drugs," Presented at the Conference on Crime, Drugs, Health and Prohibition, Harvard Law School May 21, A Global Argument for Drug Legalization Posted by Yaqui for Borderland Beat from: Debate World legalization of drugs will only lead to more problems caused by them but our smartest people are arguing a different cause only for pride.
Judge in El Chapo case rules in favor of prosecuti California: The birthplace of ‘Big Sur Holy Weed.