Drug legalization

Well I wish the effects that drugs can cause on people were enough of a reason, but there obviously not. I wish they were though. You have said yourself that it is illegal to have these drugs, but people find ways of getting them. Do you think it would be different if we made it legal, do you really think people would only take the "recommended dose". It would get out of hand to quickly. The problem with drugs is that one you get a tolerance you need more to get the same high. People will search for more and more to get the same high. It wont be moderated like you think it will be. You say, "Well, illegal drugs are illegal yet still people use them." Well I will say the same to you about the idea of setting up a stable amount for people to use these drugs. It will be illegal but people will still abuse them. I quote, "My point is that in part because of this, as a society we would be better off having them be legal." I would like to know how you think that this would be better for society? You say as an Adult you have the right to choice what to put in your body. You absolutely do, no one is stopping you. The government just says if you get caught doing that, in this country, certain things will happen. Simply put, by promoting drugs, your promoting deaths. Here is a whole website that shows you just the thing your talking about, and why it doesn't work. Chapter Three: The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization Discussion I. Their Argument Proponents of legalization suggest that the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland prove the efficacy of legalizing or decriminalizing various types of illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. They maintain that because such drugs are legal, these countries have fewer addicts and less drug-related crime. II. Our Argument The statements of the legalizers here are empirically untrue. As we discuss each country in turn, it will be shown that legalization did not work in any of them. A. Great Britain With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit. As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53 A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56 To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length: While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted: 1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts; 2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of drugs; 3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time; 4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity; 5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves; 6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts; 7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population; 8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive; 9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure. In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57 B. The Netherlands Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59 The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65 There are more you can look at the website..http://www.druglibrary.org... Thats my argument to why, this idea won't work.