Legalization of drugs would make the streets of america much safer
Federal drug policy has remained strictly prohibitionist to this day. Moreover, when the police in our city do catch an addict, they are less likely to prosecute him if he can prove that he is undergoing anything remotely resembling psychiatric treatment.
The argument is that the overwhelming majority of the harm done to society by the consumption of currently illicit drugs is caused not by their pharmacological properties but by their prohibition and the resultant criminal activity that prohibition always calls into being.
According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, between and the number of people in federal and state prisons and local jails grew by Nonviolent drug offenders make up 58 percent of the federal prison population, a population that is extremely costly to maintain.
Despite the pain and mess involved, injection became popular because, as The Washington Times put it, "that's the way to get the biggest, longest high for the money.
Drug legalization debate
But there would be non-compliers. As we've noted above, savings would be redirected toward better police protection and speedier judicial service. Once alcohol prohibition was repealed, consumption increased somewhat, but the rate of liver cirrhosis went down because people tended to choose beer and wine over the more potent, distilled spirits previously promoted by bootleggers. The reality of prohibition belies that promise. The allocation of vast sums of money to law enforcement diminishes the funds available for drug education, preventive social programs and treatment. The police chief and investigators expect the number eventually to approach By contrast, the figure is less than one percent in Liverpool, England, where clean needles are easily available. It stands to reason, therefore, that all these problems would be resolved at a stroke if everyone were permitted to smoke, swallow, or inject anything he chose. At the very least, people no longer need to be worried about engaging in sketchy black market drug deals in parking lots, and can instead engage in commerce like adults in retail stores. You can access the entire archive of over issues with a digital subscription.
If opiate addicts commit crimes even when they receive their drugs free of charge, it is because they are unable to meet their other needs any other way; but there are, unfortunately, drugs whose consumption directly leads to violence because of their psychopharmacological properties and not merely because of the criminality associated with their distribution.
They make unimaginable sums of money, but they have no interest in the strength or purity of their drugs, nor the safety of the users.
Since the government would be the only seller it could maintain an absolute ban on any advertising or other attempts to promote drugs.
Instead of building more prisons, we could pocket the money and still be safer. Surely we have already slid down enough slippery slopes in the last 30 years without looking for more such slopes to slide down.
Customs Service, the police chiefs responding "blamed drugs for a fifth of the murders and rapes, a quarter car thefts, two-fifths of robberies and assaults and half the nation's burglaries and thefts.
But most do not.
Should drugs be legalised pros and cons
Prohibition Is A Destructive Force In Inner City Communities Inner city communities suffer most from both the problem of drug abuse and the consequences of drug prohibition. I discovered that, when alcohol is effectively free of charge, a fifth of British construction workers will regularly go to bed so drunk that they are incontinent both of urine and feces. For example, according to government estimates only 12 percent of drug users are black, but nearly 40 percent of those arrested for drug offenses are black. Today, drug-law enforcement consumes more than half of all police resources nationwide, resources that could be better spent fighting violent crimes like rape, assault and robbery. There would be great advantages if the market were to be taken over by national governments, who could set the rules for its operation and regulate it in any way which seemed desirable. Details would be fine-tuned in the light of experience, perhaps obtained by running pilot projects. There would be a powerful incentive to provide a product of uniform quality: killing customers or losing them to competitors is not a proven way to success. Having once had a psychiatric consultation is an all-purpose alibi for a robber or a burglar; the police, who do not want to fill in the plus forms it now takes to charge anyone with anything in England, consider a single contact with a psychiatrist sufficient to deprive anyone of legal responsibility for crime forever. To the contrary, if the use of narcotics and stimulants were to become virtually universal, as is by no means impossible, the number of situations in which compulsory checks upon people would have to be carried out, for reasons of public safety, would increase enormously. In an ideal world, yes. An especially needy group -- low-income pregnant women who abused crack -- often had no place to go at all because Medicaid would not reimburse providers. That is why prudence is a political virtue: what stands to reason should happen does not necessarily happen in practice.
based on 119 review