The prohibition of drugs is a subject of considerable controversy. I will present some arguments for and against drug prohibition.
First point of view: Many of the arguments for drug prohibition are based on perceptions of drugs as dangerous to people. Some of these perceptions are based on common knowledge or scientific evidence, indicating how certain drugs are detrimental to individuals and communities. Those who are against prohibition argue that even when drugs are dangerous to people, it is much easier to control their use and minimize harm if drugs are legal. The decriminalization of drugs would then be perceived as a more ethical way to deal with the problem.
From the other point of view: Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, speak in Washington before the launch of the World Drug Report in June 2006: "After so many years of drug control experience, we now know that a coherent, long-term strategy can reduce drug supply, demand and trafficking. If this does not happen, it will be because some nations fail to take the drug issue sufficiently seriously and pursue inadequate policies. Many countries have the drug problem they deserve." He has also argued - "Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average. For three decades, Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power. There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously. Governments and societies must keep their nerve and avoid being swayed by misguided notions of tolerance. They must not lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are dangerous - that is why the world agreed to restrict them."
My personal idea is on halfway mark... I think that be under arrest for having used cannabis is a punishment too much strict. What do you think?
In response to Diego.. Hi! here Andrea, Anna and Eleonora. In Italy two years ago there was a debate about a new law concerning the possession and use of drugs and the abolition of any distinction between soft and hard drugs. This law was criticized because of its administrative sanction against the personal use of drugs, even though a popolar referendum in 1993 had sanctioned that the use of these substances has not to be punished. In our opinion legalization of the soft drugs could be a solution to decrease the illegal traffic and the dealing, with an income for the State. On the other hand in this way the infringement might become the use of hard drugs if cannabis became a habit.
In response to Diego… The Swedish non-drug-policy is strong and many stand united behind it. In order for the people to obtain its faith for the country, and its beliefs, the government have to stands strong in decisions like this. As you said, ‘drug use is just a third of the European average’, which according to me states that Sweden has been successful in comparison to others. But success doesn’t come without a prize. There will always be people using despite the laws and these numbers can only be speculated.
When talking about drugs you need to remember that the dangers of them vary a lot. Not all drugs are lethal even if some of them certainly are. But where shall you draw the line? Diego, you said that getting arrested for using Cannabis is a too strict punishment; What punishment would be appropriate? Should the punishment be harder for heavier drugs? I think that would only create a situation where you allow one drug more than another. Therefore, I believe that the laws should be as strict of all drug types.
I understand that the double standards in today’s society creates even more diversities. Some of the prohibited drugs are used for treating diseases and in relieving pain for hospital patients. Alcohol can cause long term memory loss as well as liver damages and cigarettes are proven to cause cancer. Why aren’t they prohibited as well? I can surely understand why users of other drugs find this controversial! I do as well. But if total legislation of drugs is the way to go is highly questionable.
In my opinion, Drugs should be legalized. I come from a country where the narcotraffic is a real problem also if the use of drugs is not as big as in europe or the unites states. Terrorists and all dangerous people live off this activity. Everybody knows it. Some years ago a president from Ecuador wanted to legalize drugs. He was killed. the big countries want to keep drugs ilegal because they are also taking money from it. I think thay nowadays there is enough information about drugs and its effects. If a person wants to use drugs in spite of all the information avalible it's his or her problem.
The Italian politicians aren't able to legislate about this question (they aren't able to legislate about a lot of problems!!!). We think that it's not consistent to measure with a different yardstick, why are alchool and cigarettes legal, whereas cannabis is illegal? There are some studies about the drugs and nicotine effects. They prove that nicotine is more dangerous than cannabis, but the Italian governement have a state monopoly on cigarettes...do you understand? The target of the law about that is to manage to use, avoiding the excess and tackle the illegal business. The use drugs requires a several control because it might degenerate into an increase of heavy drugs. So, are Italian politicians ready to make a law? It is for posterity to judge.
Hi! In Italy there is a political current that would like to legalize soft drugs like cannabis, because the use of them is very common. We know that the cannabis effects like neurological damage and the loss of inhibition depend on the quantity that is taken, so we could legalize it and at the same time penalize excesses. This reasoning is the same that has determined the free alcohol and cigarettes consumption!
In response to Cristina Hi Cristina! I like how clear your opinion about this theme one is. Well, I can say I have a clear position too. I'm completely against the legalisation of drugs. Almost everyday the news show a lot of car crashes caused by drivers because of the effect of alchool and/or toxic substances. So, how many other of these bad events could happen, if the use of drugs was free? What's more, I think that even the use of alchool should be submitted under a stronger control by authorities. Besides, I don't think that the drug war could be better undertaken by legalising the use of drugs. Meanwhile criminal organizations would find other ways by which to carry on their own illegal business with drugs, young people would feel authorized to use it without giving due importance to the devastating effects on their health. By legalising drugs, a bad behaviour pattern would be given to them. I'd rather think that the only way to fight this kind of society's cancer is to assure the right education to young people in order to make them deeply conscious about the pointless and lethal effects of drugs.
I respond to Christina I have another opinion than you have; I think Sweden non drug policy is really good. I don’t think the corruption that fur sure exists in South America would disappear if drugs would be legal. Why do you think that? Many people might think that we live in a country where we protect the people to much from doing dangerous stuff like drugs. But just see how much it would cost the society if drugs would be legal I don’t believe in it and I also know how much bad it causes with drugs not just for the addict also for the people around. It is also a cultural thing for example alcohol is very accepted in our Swedish society even if it kills, hurts, and cost a lot of money from the government every year. When I was in Bolivia everyone was chewing coca leaves and that’s very accepted there, they need it for the high latitude and I also think is legal because of the president Morale. I’m in Canada right now, here is it legal to use drugs but not buying and selling and it’s so much more drugs and homeless people in this town. I also read a article from e newspaper the other day about that they had did research her in Vancouver were they had give out free heroin to 20 people, their own experiences was that they could start a more normal life with work and apartment because they didn’t had to struggle everyday for the drugs. One of the men in the research pointed out that for him was it like he just wanted to have more when he got it for free, ha was a man of addiction was his explanation. I think if we lagalize the “soft drugs” in Sweden it will become more common with the heavy drugs. I have also worked in a rehab ward with heroin addicts and it was terrible to listen what a hard life they had to live to get money for drugs and it’s defiantly takes hardest on the women. In many cases it’s not that they have fall over a cannula or something, the first road in is often the softer drugs, some people might stop there but it’s not certain for everybody. Cheers //AnnaMaria
By the way, I was talking to a freind here now, drugs are not legal in Canada, it was before wirh cannabis but not anymore just for medical treatmeant. Cheers AnnaMaria
I must start off by saying that I agree with alot of what Marie said. I really don't believe one should put labels of hard and milder drug. They are drugs, period. And more often than other things like, alcohol and cigarettes, they do kill. I'm well aware one gives, morphine in the medical sense of the word, to people who are in the last stages of life, just to get them comfortable and free them of any pain they might be feeling. But in a way, that is different from giving an addict a substance one knows is just going to prolong the abuse. That would be like slowly, but activly killing this person. I suppose in some way one could put an equal sign between the medically accepted morphine and the and handing out drugs part, but I suppose that's where the moral and ethical issues comes to hand. It's not pretty watching somebody die, especially not someone who did so because of an abuse. But I think that one way of going about it would be to take groups like AN and AA to a morgue. Show them the insides of a person who abused these kinds of substances and tell litterarly show them the consequences of what they are doing to themselves.Maybe a bit harsh, but so is reality.
I agree with you that all abuses are damaging... But it's true also for food!!!
We need to define the meaning of "drug" and I will list some extracts from wordreference.com:
Recreation Recreational drugs use is the use of psychoactive substances to have fun, for the experience, or to enhance an already positive experience. National laws prohibit the use of many different recreational drugs and medicinal drugs that have the potential for recreational use are heavily regulated. Many other recreational drugs on the other hand are legal, widely culturally accepted, and at the most have an age restriction on using and/or purchasing them. These include alcohol, tobacco, betel nut, and caffeine products.
Nobody has focused the attention on an important aspect of the problem. Which is the psicological effect of doing a thing that is forbidden? It's simple; sometimes, and for someone, it sounds good! For a good comprehension of what I want to explain I will speak about alcohol, making a comparison between the italian and the swedish situation (I'm half-swedish). In Sweden the consumption of any type of alcoholic drinks stronger than 3.5% is strictly forbidden up to the age of 18. If you want to buy alcohol you have to go in special shops called "Systembolaget" (demonstrating that you are older than 18 with your ID). In addition, often you can not enter a pub or a disco if you are younger than 21. The many times I have been there, going out with my swedish friends on Friday or Saturday evening, I saw many young boys drinking incredible self-made superalcohol drinks. The town center (my mother comes from a small city called Varberg, 80 km south from Gothenburg) on Friday evening becomes full of drunked and dangerous people kept at bay by tons of policemen. I saw the behaviour of my relatives with their children; alcohol is not considered as a natural thing which use has to be taught to children; it's something strictly forbidden, it's a taboo, and therefore it's a closed door on a mysterious world. If you leave a door closed, it's natural to have the desire to open it. I think that this means having a problem with alcohol, and one of the reason of this problem is the prohibitionism, together with social and cultural habits and lifestyle. I never saw anything similar to this in Italy; and we have no prohibition about alcohol consumption. I don't want to say that the difference between our situation and the swedish one is only related with prohibitionism, but surely it contributes. Coming back on "soft" drugs, I'll pose an other question? Are the Dutches completely destroyed by cannabis or heavy drugs? I don't think so! Therefore, as you can imagine, I'm absolutely in agreement with "soft" drugs legalisation. The solution is not prohibition, but education! It's the common sense that has to regulate the consumption. And I don't think that a legalisation of "soft" drugs will open the way to the consumption of "heavy" drugs. Without forgetting that I'm absolutely in agreement with who says that a legalisation of "soft" drugs will resolve some of the problems of criminality related with dealing.
In my opinon, the biggest problem with drugs (and, in general, with psychotropic chemicals) is the social one.
What makes us accept sime kind of drugs (like alcohol, nicotine, etc.) and to label others as dangerous, or "bad"? It is the society we live in. In our society we accept a person that smokes a whole packet of cigarettes a day, or that drinks ten cups of coffee a day; the actual abuser is instead the person that takes a puff at a joint sometimes on Saturday nights.
This has a terrible consequence: we have lots of alcoholics and of people with breathing issues due to cigarette smoke. I'd prefer that instead of fighting heroin (that kills a hundred people in Italy each year) we fight alcohol and smoke abuse, that both kill tens of thousands Italians each year! Of course, it is very difficult to fight against customs (drinking alcohol, smoking...) that are so widespread; but, as numbers show, it would be much more useful rather than punishing with many years of jail the few people that smoke joints or take heroin or cocain.
About the intrisic dangers of the psychotropic drugs: they've already been deeply analyzed by scientists, and, of course, there are no soft drugs or hard drugs: only drugs that in "ordinary" doses don't impair the body too much, and drugs that may even kill in small quantities; to quote pharmacologists: "a drug is a toxic substance in non-lethal doses".
Psychotropic drugs are present everywhere, not only in nature (in plants, in flowers and so on) but also in many household products, with a so wide range of different active principles that makes exaustive catalogues impossibile to draw up.
So, I wouldn't lose time by trying to write down a list of drugs that are not allowed. The real point is how to educate people to the dangers that every drug has, especially those socially accepted, and how to not become addicted.
I also think that the State should sanction the selling and the usage of some popularly used drugs, like marijuana, in order to fight the drugs deal that funds organized crime; the takings should be used, for instance, to finance awareness campaigns about the dangers of being addictive and to help addicted people to come off.
15 comments:
The prohibition of drugs is a subject of considerable controversy. I will present some arguments for and against drug prohibition.
First point of view:
Many of the arguments for drug prohibition are based on perceptions of drugs as dangerous to people. Some of these perceptions are based on common knowledge or scientific evidence, indicating how certain drugs are detrimental to individuals and communities. Those who are against prohibition argue that even when drugs are dangerous to people, it is much easier to control their use and minimize harm if drugs are legal. The decriminalization of drugs would then be perceived as a more ethical way to deal with the problem.
From the other point of view:
Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, speak in Washington before the launch of the World Drug Report in June 2006:
"After so many years of drug control experience, we now know that a coherent, long-term strategy can reduce drug supply, demand and trafficking. If this does not happen, it will be because some nations fail to take the drug issue
sufficiently seriously and pursue inadequate policies. Many countries have the drug problem they deserve."
He has also argued - "Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average. For three decades, Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power. There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously. Governments and societies must keep their nerve and avoid being swayed by misguided notions of tolerance. They must not lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are dangerous - that is why the world agreed to restrict them."
My personal idea is on halfway mark... I think that be under arrest for having used cannabis is a punishment too much strict. What do you think?
In response to Diego..
Hi! here Andrea, Anna and Eleonora.
In Italy two years ago there was a debate about a new law concerning the possession and use of drugs and the abolition of any distinction between soft and hard drugs. This law was criticized because of its administrative sanction against the personal use of drugs, even though a popolar referendum in 1993 had sanctioned that the use of these substances has not to be punished.
In our opinion legalization of the soft drugs could be a solution to decrease the illegal traffic and the dealing, with an income for the State.
On the other hand in this way the infringement might become the use of hard drugs if cannabis became a habit.
In response to Diego…
The Swedish non-drug-policy is strong and many stand united behind it. In order for the people to obtain its faith for the country, and its beliefs, the government have to stands strong in decisions like this. As you said, ‘drug use is just a third of the European average’, which according to me states that Sweden has been successful in comparison to others. But success doesn’t come without a prize. There will always be people using despite the laws and these numbers can only be speculated.
When talking about drugs you need to remember that the dangers of them vary a lot. Not all drugs are lethal even if some of them certainly are. But where shall you draw the line? Diego, you said that getting arrested for using Cannabis is a too strict punishment; What punishment would be appropriate? Should the punishment be harder for heavier drugs? I think that would only create a situation where you allow one drug more than another. Therefore, I believe that the laws should be as strict of all drug types.
I understand that the double standards in today’s society creates even more diversities. Some of the prohibited drugs are used for treating diseases and in relieving pain for hospital patients. Alcohol can cause long term memory loss as well as liver damages and cigarettes are proven to cause cancer. Why aren’t they prohibited as well? I can surely understand why users of other drugs find this controversial! I do as well. But if total legislation of drugs is the way to go is highly questionable.
Hi everybody,
In my opinion, Drugs should be legalized. I come from a country where the narcotraffic is a real problem also if the use of drugs is not as big as in europe or the unites states. Terrorists and all dangerous people live off this activity. Everybody knows it. Some years ago a president from Ecuador wanted to legalize drugs. He was killed. the big countries want to keep drugs ilegal because they are also taking money from it.
I think thay nowadays there is enough information about drugs and its effects. If a person wants to use drugs in spite of all the information avalible it's his or her problem.
In response to Marie.
The Italian politicians aren't able to legislate about this question (they aren't able to legislate about a lot of problems!!!).
We think that it's not consistent to measure with a different yardstick, why are alchool and cigarettes legal, whereas cannabis is illegal? There are some studies about the drugs and nicotine effects. They prove that nicotine is more dangerous than cannabis, but the Italian governement have a state monopoly on cigarettes...do you understand?
The target of the law about that is to manage to use, avoiding the excess and tackle the illegal business.
The use drugs requires a several control because it might degenerate into an increase of heavy drugs. So, are Italian politicians ready to make a law?
It is for posterity to judge.
Diego and Stefano.
In response to Marie
Hi! In Italy there is a political current that would like to legalize soft drugs like cannabis, because the use of them is very common. We know that the cannabis effects like neurological damage and the loss of inhibition depend on the quantity that is taken, so we could legalize it and at the same time penalize excesses. This reasoning is the same that has determined the free alcohol and cigarettes consumption!
Can total prohibition stop this problem??
Elisa and Silvia
In response to Cristina
Hi Cristina! I like how clear your opinion about this theme one is. Well, I can say I have a clear position too. I'm completely against the legalisation of drugs. Almost everyday the news show a lot of car crashes caused by drivers because of the effect of alchool and/or toxic substances. So, how many other of these bad events could happen, if the use of drugs was free? What's more, I think that even the use of alchool should be submitted under a stronger control by authorities. Besides, I don't think that the drug war could be better undertaken by legalising the use of drugs. Meanwhile criminal organizations would find other ways by which to carry on their own illegal business with drugs, young people would feel authorized to use it without giving due importance to the devastating effects on their health. By legalising drugs, a bad behaviour pattern would be given to them. I'd rather think that the only way to fight this kind of society's cancer is to assure the right education to young people in order to make them deeply conscious about the pointless and lethal effects of drugs.
I respond to Christina
I have another opinion than you have; I think Sweden non drug policy is really good. I don’t think the corruption that fur sure exists in South America would disappear if drugs would be legal. Why do you think that?
Many people might think that we live in a country where we protect the people to much from doing dangerous stuff like drugs. But just see how much it would cost the society if drugs would be legal I don’t believe in it and I also know how much bad it causes with drugs not just for the addict also for the people around. It is also a cultural thing for example alcohol is very accepted in our Swedish society even if it kills, hurts, and cost a lot of money from the government every year. When I was in Bolivia everyone was chewing coca leaves and that’s very accepted there, they need it for the high latitude and I also think is legal because of the president Morale.
I’m in Canada right now, here is it legal to use drugs but not buying and selling and it’s so much more drugs and homeless people in this town. I also read a article from e newspaper the other day about that they had did research her in Vancouver were they had give out free heroin to 20 people, their own experiences was that they could start a more normal life with work and apartment because they didn’t had to struggle everyday for the drugs. One of the men in the research pointed out that for him was it like he just wanted to have more when he got it for free, ha was a man of addiction was his explanation. I think if we lagalize the “soft drugs” in Sweden it will become more common with the heavy drugs. I have also worked in a rehab ward with heroin addicts and it was terrible to listen what a hard life they had to live to get money for drugs and it’s defiantly takes hardest on the women. In many cases it’s not that they have fall over a cannula or something, the first road in is often the softer drugs, some people might stop there but it’s not certain for everybody.
Cheers //AnnaMaria
By the way, I was talking to a freind here now, drugs are not legal in Canada, it was before wirh cannabis but not anymore just for medical treatmeant.
Cheers AnnaMaria
In respons to Diego
I must start off by saying that I agree with alot of what Marie said. I really don't believe one should put labels of hard and milder drug. They are drugs, period. And more often than other things like, alcohol and cigarettes, they do kill.
I'm well aware one gives, morphine in the medical sense of the word, to people who are in the last stages of life, just to get them comfortable and free them of any pain they might be feeling. But in a way, that is different from giving an addict a substance one knows is just going to prolong the abuse. That would be like slowly, but activly killing this person. I suppose in some way one could put an equal sign between the medically accepted morphine and the and handing out drugs part, but I suppose that's where the moral and ethical issues comes to hand. It's not pretty watching somebody die, especially not someone who did so because of an abuse. But I think that one way of going about it would be to take groups like AN and AA to a morgue. Show them the insides of a person who abused these kinds of substances and tell litterarly show them the consequences of what they are doing to themselves.Maybe a bit harsh, but so is reality.
/Susanne Borgström
In response to Susanne:
I agree with you that all abuses are damaging... But it's true also for food!!!
We need to define the meaning of "drug" and I will list some extracts from wordreference.com:
Recreation
Recreational drugs use is the use of psychoactive substances to have fun, for the experience, or to enhance an already positive experience. National laws prohibit the use of many different recreational drugs and medicinal drugs that have the potential for recreational use are heavily regulated. Many other recreational drugs on the other hand are legal, widely culturally accepted, and at the most have an age restriction on using and/or purchasing them. These include alcohol, tobacco, betel nut, and caffeine products.
Legal definition of drugs
In the United States, the FFDCA's (a set of laws passed by Congress in 1938) definition of "drug" includes "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals." Consistent with that definition, the U.S. separately defines narcotic drugs and controlled substances, which may include non-drugs, and explicitly excludes tobacco, caffeine and alcoholic beverages.
Do you note any contradiction? The hard truth is that as long as the State profits, all is well...
In response to everybody..
Nobody has focused the attention on an important aspect of the problem.
Which is the psicological effect of doing a thing that is forbidden?
It's simple; sometimes, and for someone, it sounds good!
For a good comprehension of what I want to explain I will speak about alcohol, making a comparison between the italian and the swedish situation (I'm half-swedish).
In Sweden the consumption of any type of alcoholic drinks stronger than 3.5% is strictly forbidden up to the age of 18. If you want to buy alcohol you have to go in special shops called
"Systembolaget" (demonstrating that you are older than 18 with your ID).
In addition, often you can not enter a pub or a disco if you are younger than 21.
The many times I have been there, going out with my swedish friends on Friday or Saturday evening, I saw many young boys drinking incredible self-made superalcohol
drinks. The town center (my mother comes from a small city called Varberg, 80 km south
from Gothenburg) on Friday evening becomes full of drunked and dangerous people kept at bay by
tons of policemen.
I saw the behaviour of my relatives with their children; alcohol is not considered as a natural thing which use has to be taught to children; it's something strictly forbidden, it's a taboo, and therefore it's a closed door on a mysterious world.
If you leave a door closed, it's natural to have the desire to open it.
I think that this means having a problem with alcohol, and one of the reason of this problem is the prohibitionism, together with social and cultural habits and lifestyle.
I never saw anything similar to this in Italy; and we have no prohibition about alcohol consumption.
I don't want to say that the difference between our situation and the swedish one is only related with prohibitionism,
but surely it contributes.
Coming back on "soft" drugs, I'll pose an other question?
Are the Dutches completely destroyed by cannabis or heavy drugs? I don't think so!
Therefore, as you can imagine, I'm absolutely in agreement with "soft" drugs legalisation.
The solution is not prohibition, but education! It's the common sense that has to regulate the consumption.
And I don't think that a legalisation of "soft" drugs will open the way to the consumption of
"heavy" drugs.
Without forgetting that I'm absolutely in agreement with who says that a legalisation of "soft" drugs will resolve some of the problems of criminality related with dealing.
In my opinon, the biggest problem with drugs (and, in general, with psychotropic chemicals) is the social one.
What makes us accept sime kind of drugs (like alcohol, nicotine, etc.) and to label others as dangerous, or "bad"? It is the society we live in. In our society we accept a person that smokes a whole packet of cigarettes a day, or that drinks ten cups of coffee a day; the actual abuser is instead the person that takes a puff at a joint sometimes on Saturday nights.
This has a terrible consequence: we have lots of alcoholics and of people with breathing issues due to cigarette smoke. I'd prefer that instead of fighting heroin (that kills a hundred people in Italy each year) we fight alcohol and smoke abuse, that both kill tens of thousands Italians each year! Of course, it is very difficult to fight against customs (drinking alcohol, smoking...) that are so widespread; but, as numbers show, it would be much more useful rather than punishing with many years of jail the few people that smoke joints or take heroin or cocain.
About the intrisic dangers of the psychotropic drugs: they've already been deeply analyzed by scientists, and, of course, there are no soft drugs or hard drugs: only drugs that in "ordinary" doses don't impair the body too much, and drugs that may even kill in small quantities; to quote pharmacologists: "a drug is a toxic substance in non-lethal doses".
Psychotropic drugs are present everywhere, not only in nature (in plants, in flowers and so on) but also in many household products, with a so wide range of different active principles that makes exaustive catalogues impossibile to draw up.
So, I wouldn't lose time by trying to write down a list of drugs that are not allowed. The real point is how to educate people to the dangers that every drug has, especially those socially accepted, and how to not become addicted.
I also think that the State should sanction the selling and the usage of some popularly used drugs, like marijuana, in order to fight the drugs deal that funds organized crime; the takings should be used, for instance, to finance awareness campaigns about the dangers of being addictive and to help addicted people to come off.
Post a Comment