Why legalizing drugs is good

There is not even a commonly accepted lexicon of terms to allow an intellectually rigorous exchange to take place. Legalization, as a consequence, has come to mean different things to different people. Others equate legalization, at least implicitly, with complete deregulation, failing in the process to acknowledge the extent to which currently legally available drugs are subject to stringent controls.

Unfortunately, the U. Although it has consistently rejected any retreat from prohibition, its stance has evidently not been based on in- depth investigation of the potential costs and benefits.

The belief that legalization would lead to an instant and dramatic increase in drug use is considered to be so self-evident as to warrant no further study.

But if this is indeed the likely conclusion of any study, what is there to fear aside from criticism that relatively small amounts of taxpayer money had been wasted in demonstrating what everyone had believed at the outset? Cook Handcuffed By Malcolm K. A real debate that acknowledges the unavoidable complexities and uncertainties surrounding the notion of drug legalization is long overdue.

Not only would it dissuade people from making the kinds of casual if not flippant assertions—both for and against—that have permeated previous debates about legalization, but it could also stimulate a larger and equally critical assessment of current U.

P Paul Stares. Besides undermining the black-market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could remove or at least significantly reduce the very problems that cause the greatest public concern: the crime, corruption, and violence that attend the operation of illicit drug markets. It would presumably also diminish the damage caused by the absence of quality controls on illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle sharing and other unhygienic practices.

Furthermore, governments could abandon the costly and largely futile effort to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and jail drug offenders, spending the money thus saved to educate people not to take drugs and treat those who become addicted.

However, what is typically portrayed as a fairly straightforward process of lifting prohibitionist controls to reap these putative benefits would in reality entail addressing an extremely complex set of regulatory issues. As with most if not all privately and publicly provided goods, the key regulatory questions concern the nature of the legally available drugs, the terms of their supply, and the terms of their consumption see page What becomes immediately apparent from even a casual review of these questions—and the list presented here is by no means exhaustive—is that there is an enormous range of regulatory permutations for each drug.

Until all the principal alternatives are clearly laid out in reasonable detail, however, the potential costs and benefits of each cannot begin to be responsibly assessed. This fundamental point can be illustrated with respect to the two central questions most likely to sway public opinion. What would happen to drug consumption under more permissive regulatory regimes?

And what would happen to crime? Relaxing the availability of psychoactive substances not already commercially available, opponents typically argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial rise in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin, and cocaine addiction in various countries before international controls took effect, the rise in alcohol consumption after the Volstead Act was repealed in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among medical professionals with greater access to prescription drugs.

After witnessing the opioid epidemic firsthand, I have learned this lesson all too well — and I am genuinely scared of how America would pay for full legalization. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all.

Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.

By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. I used to support legalizing all drugs. Then the opioid epidemic happened. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. The opioid epidemic shows the US can be really bad at drug regulation I should be clear: I am talking about the legalization of harder drugs, so none of this applies to marijuana legalization.

But stigma is holding it back. I found Vermont. California is changing that. The case for prescription heroin The opioid epidemic is increasingly killing black Americans.

Baltimore is ground zero. So why was the one in Orange County shut down? She paid nothing for opioid painkillers. Show More. Delivered Fridays. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email required. Other restrictions could also be put in place while still legalizing the drug. These could include such things as having a minimum age for use e.

Many such restrictions are placed on the sale of alcohol, for example. CONs: Likely to substantially increase drug sales and consumption, as well as public health and safety harms in the population as more people use it. It should be noted that just because there are laws in place to limit potential public health and safety harms from an uptick in use, it does not mean necessarily that such laws will be adequately enforced once a drug is legalized.

At the other end of the spectrum from prohibition, and at the far end of the legalization continuum, one can have unmitigated free market commercialization.

This allows free reign for industry to brand and advertise as much as they want and for it to be sold with few, if any, restrictions. Industry goes to great expense to attractively shape, tint, color, and even emboss the glass, create gilt-edged high-color labels, gold foil wrappings, and launch multi-million-dollar professional advertising campaigns in an attempt to create an image that attracts, seduces, and increases sales and profits.

PROs: Eliminate the criminal activity and increase associated industry jobs and tax revenues. Thus, any potential tax revenue gains from sales can be offset by economic losses related to lowered workforce productivity e. It should also be noted that despite being legal, economic costs due to law enforcement and criminal justice could still also contribute to economic burden due to violations of the laws accompanying legalization e.

The other reason for equivocal policy support, I believe, is a lack of clarity about the issues. Many people equate decriminalisation with legalisation, but as detailed above, they are very different in policy, intent and action. Decriminalisation is also sometimes incorrectly confused with harm reduction services, such as injecting centres or prescribed heroin programs.

The Australia 21 Report released last week to stimulate informed public debate is an important step foward. In order for the debate to progress, we need clarity of terms, and dispassionate presentation of what evidence we have.

Every policy has both risks and benefits and we need to talk about these. Skip to main content. Search form. Home Blogs z's blog Decriminalisation or legalisation: injecting evidence in the drug law reform