The Economist: Legalize drugs

drugs and guns

Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution

Far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before.

It would end the huge profits that the Mexican drug traffic and Afghan heroin trade produces. Those who squawk the loudest about the horrors of legalization might also be profiting from drugs being illegal, seems to me. That there are plenty of corrupted cops and money-laundering banks in the US is obvious enough. Legalization eliminates all of that.

Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated.

Of course, not everyone that uses drugs gets addicted just like not all drinkers are alcoholics. Lots of people can handle both. And I say that as one who can has been clean and sober for many years and can’t handle either one.

That fear [parents afraid their children would take drugs] is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong.

There would probably be an initial boost in usage, mainly out of curiosity, then it would drop back down.

I know people with cancer who smoke marijuana because it’s the best (and only) way to stop nausea caused by chemotherapy. That this is illegal is criminal.

One comment

  1. I agree totally. The time has come where we admit that prohibition is not working. not only are we seeing more people using drugs and more available and for cheaper but we have gangsters killing each other for a cut of the exorbitant profits in the business. the original problems getting worse and a wholenew one is developing. Cop on society!!

Comments are closed.