During the Civil War, morphine (an opium derivative and cousin of heroin) was found to have analgesic properties and quickly became the main ingredient in several patented medicines. In the late 19th century, marijuana and cocaine received various medical uses – marijuana to treat migraines, rheumatism and insomnia, and cocaine to treat sinusitis, hay fever and chronic fatigue. All of these drugs were also used recreationally, and cocaine, in particular, was a common ingredient in wines and soft drinks – including the popular Coca Cola. Governments could generate tax revenue from illegal drugs, as they currently do with gambling, alcohol and tobacco. A regulated state monopoly could provide direct revenues; Our research suggests that this could reach $600 million per year for a regulated cannabis market in New South Wales. The best evidence of the failure of prohibition is the government`s current war on drugs. Instead of implementing a strategy of prevention, research, education and social programmes aimed at solving problems such as persistent poverty, long-term unemployment and deteriorating living conditions in our city centres, this war has pursued a law enforcement strategy. As this military approach continues to devour billions of taxpayers` money and send tens of thousands of people to prison, the illicit drug trade thrives, violence intensifies, and drug abuse continues to weaken lives. Added to this is the largely uncontrolled spread of the AIDS virus among drug addicts, their sexual partners and offspring. Drug Free Australia concludes that any democratic society that views the use of a particular drug as an unacceptable harm to the individual user, an unacceptable harm to the surrounding community of users, or a transfer of an undue burden to the community will seek to legislate that restricts that particular freedom of the individual.  Limited processing resources.
Allocating huge sums of money to law enforcement reduces the resources available for drug education, preventive social programs and treatment. As crack cocaine use increased in the late 1980s, millions of dollars were spent on street drug control and the imprisonment of tens of thousands of low-level offenders, while only a handful of public drug treatment places were created. One particularly needy group — low-income pregnant women who abused crack cocaine — often had nowhere to go at all because Medicaid didn`t compensate providers. Instead, the government persecuted and imprisoned these women regardless of the negative consequences for their children. Sabet acknowledges that if prudent drug policy experts like Kleiman were solely responsible for establishing a regulatory model for legal marijuana, the concept would be less worrisome. But even when Kleiman and others are consulted by the states, their hands are tied by simplistic federal laws and voting initiatives. The economic argument for legalizing drugs is to legalize drugs and generate tax revenue. This argument is gaining ground as national administrations seek new sources of revenue during the current economic crisis. This argument of legalization and taxation is unethical and not economic.
It proposes a perverse tax, generation after generation, on marginalized cohorts (lost to dependency) to stimulate economic recovery. Are supporters of this cause also in favor of legalizing and taxing other seemingly persistent crimes such as human trafficking? Modern slaves (and there are millions of them) would certainly generate good tax revenue to bail out bankrupt banks. The economic argument is also based on poor budgetary logic: any reduction in the cost of drug control (due to lower law enforcement spending) is offset by much higher public health spending (due to increased drug use). The moral of the story: Don`t make bad deals. Although the alternative to legalization usually emerges when public fear of drugs and despair of existing policies are at their highest, it never seems to disappear long from the radar screen of the media. Periodic incidents — such as the heroin-induced death of a wealthy young Couple in New York in 1995 or then-surgeon general Jocelyn Elders` remark in 1993 that legalization could be beneficial and should be investigated — guarantee this. The importance of many of those who have advocated for legalization at various times — such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, and George Shultz — also helps. But every time the question of legalization arises, the same arguments for and against are dusted off and produced, so we don`t have a clearer understanding of what it might mean and what the implications might be.
Either way, there is reason to doubt that the crime rate is falling as drastically as legalization advocates have suggested. Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is one of the most violent and dirty cities in Europe. The idea behind the crime – getting rich, or at least richer, quickly and without much effort – is unlikely to disappear once the drugs are freely available to anyone who wants them. And it may be that officially sanctioned antisocial behavior – the official lifting of taboos – produces even more antisocial behavior, as the « broken windows » theory suggests. Proponents of prohibition argue that drug laws have proven successful in suppressing illicit drug use since their introduction 100 years ago.   Illicit drug alcohol currently has (in the last 12 months) rates of use of up to 80-90% in the population over the age of 14, and tobacco has always had current consumption rates of up to 60% of the adult population, but the percentages currently using illicit drugs in OECD countries are generally less than 1% of the population, with the exception of cannabis, where most are between 3% and 10%. with six countries between 11% and 17%.  A genuine debate recognizing the inevitable complexities and uncertainties surrounding the concept of drug legalization is long overdue.
Not only would this discourage people from making the kind of casual, if not flippant, claims both for and against – that have permeated previous debates about legalization, but it could also inspire a broader and equally critical assessment of the current United States. Drug control programmes and priorities. Many of the deaths from cannabis use, with the exception of drunk car accidents or violence and assault are more likely to occur in the long term, as is tobacco, where nicotine and cannabis overdoses are extremely rare or absent. Although ecstasy may have lower immediate mortality rates than some other illegals, there is a growing body of scientific evidence on the significant health damage already recognized from ecstasy.  Drug Free Australia argues that the distinction between « soft » and « hard » drugs is completely artificial, and labelling cannabis as « mild » or ecstasy as « recreational » does not reduce the widespread harms of these substances.  A clear mind: It could be argued that a clear mind and an uncluttered vision of reality and truth are precious in themselves. That is why we believe that deception, even self-deception, is bad. We are talking about eradicating fake news and misguided conspiracy theories. We regret those who cannot see themselves clearly and who allow themselves to be deceived and create their own false version of the truth about their own lives. In extreme cases, we refer these people to psychologists and psychiatrists, because the loss of reality, if it is serious enough, can be a pathological condition.
This would be an argument in particular against drugs that cause a distorted perception of reality, from mood enhancers to hallucinogens. This would apply less to coffee, sugar and tobacco, which don`t seem to disturb clarity of mind much. A 2001 Australian study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research of young people aged 18 to 29 suggests that prohibition discourages illicit drug use.  29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as the reason they had never used the drug, while 19% of those who had stopped using cannabis cited its illegality as the reason.