Dilemma No 1
The first dilemma confronting the advocates of legalisation is clearly demonstrated by the above. On one hand, they want as few regulations as possible. Regulations create a black market and the elimination of the black market is claimed to be the primary reason for legalisation. On the other hand, there are very few who would claim that all drugs should be entirely free and without any form of control.Dilemma No 2
This leads to the legalisation advocate's second major dilemma, namely the difficulty of giving credibility to the claim that the legalisation of drugs presently illegal will result in a reduction of a problem which is already acute.Advocates of legalisation often cite the injuries resulting form the consumption of alcohol. Experience in this field has indicated that access (availability) in itself is of decisive importance for the scope of consumption and, consequently, the extent of the damage. The repeal of Prohibition in the United States lowered drinking prices dramatically and increased supplies. Not surprisingly, alcoholism rates scored. The drug problem would expand also after legalisation. Experience shows that if access to alcohol increases (through low prices and ample supply) then injuries, treatment requirement, absence from work, etc also increase.
Increased availability will result in increased usage of the new illegal drugs which in turn will entail an increase in addiction. Abuse normally first arises within small and exclusive circles. At a later stage it forces itself out among socially instable groups with a high tendency to deviating behaviour. In the subsequent phase drugs tend to make a break through among curious and initiative-prone young people in general and, finally, to gain a foothold among socially well - functioning adults. Today the latter category probably already constitutes the economic backbone of the drugs market. A growing number among these consumers will develop an addiction since addiction results from the consumption of drugs.
Dilemma No 3
We then come to the third dilemma facing advocates of legalisation: they often underestimate or ignore the fact that drugs cause addiction. Certain drugs (cocaine, for example) have a significantly greater addiction causing potential than that of alcohol. Further, these advocates overestimate the ability of the individuals to control their consumption, especially when the supply is - in principle - free. The drug problem will become established as an additional problem since alcohol and drugs do not replace each other but, rather, increase each others potency and reinforce the negative nature of an intoxication culture. Alcohol and drugs markets each facilitate the others expansion by increasing the number of opportunities for intoxication.On top of this, many drugs also create increased tolerance, i.e. the doses have to be increased and/or taken at a higher frequency to produce a "high". Addiction and tolerance ensure that drug abuse becomes very expensive even if drugs seem to have low prices. Faithful consumers who perpetually come back - the ultimate market!
Dilemma No 4
Advocates of legalisation do not seem to realise that drug-taking, in the beginning, is a social pattern and is spread form those who are consuming drugs to novices which in most cases are close friends, partners or relatives. This spreading takes place in the early stages of the abuse-career, in most cases BEFORE addiction and other negative effects have occurred. At the same speed as negative effects appear, the inclination to share the habit drops dramatically. Drugs are spread because the drug taker wants to share what they think is the highlight of life with their best friends. And that is why the spreading declines when the negative effects occur. They don't want to drag their friends into trouble and misery. So, how is the epidemic spread to be handled under legalisation? Do advocates think that information has any chance to overpower the subjective, short-time EFFECTS of crack?Dilemma No 5
The fifth major dilemma in which legalisation advocates become entangled is a consequence of their unawareness of the international effects, primarily the increased exploitation the Third World which would be the result of legalisation.Legalisation would increase the income - generating market in Europe overnight and convert the present illegal smuggle routes into acknowledged sources of income for more or less totalitarian military regimes and/or private armies. These people are, of course, those who own the cultivation areas and whose distribution system is complete and functioning. The effect would be that addicts in the western world help dictators to strengthen their fortunes and power positions. They could increasingly pacify their own people since increased drugs sales would also have an effect on their own country.
Those in power would gain enormous resources in order to establish control and oppression apparatus to hold large groups of people under control and thereby ensure the permanency of the oppression which is already obvious today.
A political aspect of drug abuse also has an equivalent in Europe. As a conscious human being, one understands that there are strong political and economic interests involved in keeping people fast in their severe and obvious addiction as a substitute for the helplessness and loss of purpose which is obvious within large groups. Drugs have a compensatory role which prevents people from doing something about their life situation in a constructive manner.
Drugs are a reliable ally to oppression on all levels.
Dilemma No 6
The sixth dilemma confronting advocates of legalisation is that the argument which appears to be the strongest on behalf of legalisation, the economy, is in actual fact one of the strongest arguments for retention of a very severe regulation of these substances.One sometimes hears that it is too expensive to wage war on drugs, that it costs more than it is worth and that it may even cause greater problems than it solves.
There is a great deal to be said in reply to this. Firstly,
the police, customs and legal systems cost large sums
today - which perhaps could be somewhat reduced if drugs
were legalised. But drugs affect behaviour and change
personalities which create violence and crime! Legalisation
would constitute a large drugs market which in turn would
generate crimes, including the problem with road, air
and sea traffic safety. So the legal systems would be
busy with that kind of problem. And even if society could "save" some
money on the legal system, soaring amounts would have
to be spent on information, treatment, production losses,
etc after legalisation.
Secondly, the present measures need not be as highly expensive as they are.
Costs are more a matter of the direction of the measures taken, of what is
done. Thirdly, it is actually true that it is the drugs themselves and not
the laws which cause the greatest damage. On the other hand, widespread drug
abuse, emanating from a legalised market, can lead to desperate measures like
the adoption of far-going legislation which is clearly dangerous for democracy.
Dilemma No 7
The legalisation advocate's seventh dilemma is that the demand for legalisation will reduce the benefits of the welfare state and the quality of its inhabitant's lives. Legalisation, seen in a somewhat longer perspective, will in al probability reduce the average life length among great portions of the most productive sectors of the population. In addition to the purely health aspect among a number of individuals, effects will be observed in the form of decreased production in industry and a drainage of brain power.The classical liberal doctrine that one's personal freedom must never encroach on the freedom of another will also be violated in many ways - all from destroyed families and the effects on unborn children to crimes of violence and the fact that society's ability to provide care and treatment will be exhausted.
Dilemma No 8
The ninth dilemma is that society has begun to establish a pattern of adopting "short -term solutions" or that it has simply surrendered when faced with major problems. In view of the global problems which confront us, such as the supplying of food to the Third World, the devastation of natural resources, the threat posed by nuclear weapons, etc., it is of vital importance that we choose methods to solve problems and not sweep them under the carpet by making judicial and political redefinitions of the problem. A legalisation strategy is the logical final goal for retreating liberal drugs policy.Conclusion
Our responsibility to our children and for our future means that we must not open the door to drugs with legalisation and decriminalisation. The fact that alcohol and tobacco became established in the western world can always be blamed on the fact that we did not know how dangerous they were - and still are. Now we know the negative effects of drugs on the individual, the family and society. We cannot deny that responsibility.
What is Decriminilisation and Legalisation of drugs?
The term decriminalisation means to bring the drug problem out of the scope of penal (criminal) law. Law enforcement will no longer be provided for the export, import, manufacture, distribution, sale, publicity, possession and use of drugs that are up till now controlled within the scope of international conventions.
The consequence of decriminalisation of drugs is that society has no law or lever to use to direct drug addicts towards help and treatment; neither does society have the means to suppress trafficking.
Hand in hand with decriminalisation of drugs lies legalisation. In the case of legalisation, a form of more or less free distribution of drugs is to be organised. In the case of decriminalisation (with drugs out of the penal law) the Government will have to regulate the distribution and make rules for such. But regulations by Government will fail as users need more and more.
The consequence of legalisation would be that society would be subjected to an increased pressure for the drugs market.
Are decriminalisation and legalisation the same thing in the end?
Yes, it is complete capitulation. Users, the root and motive force of the drugs market, will be more or less free to use and possess drugs, and traffickers will feel it worth the risks to extend the traffic to MORE people. Success is warranted due to the addictive character of the drugs.
EURAD advocates a preventive demand - restrictive strategy where the main emphasis is put on ordinary people (parents, teachers, church, youth leaders, a.s.o.). They must learn how to prevent and how to detect drug abuse at an early stage and in cooperation stop it. If this can be done while the problem is small, then the measures can be small too and no police state is created.
 |
