David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> wrote:
Other spectators hold the opposite view: that the illegality causes more problems than it solves.
Indeed they do. The question is whether the reduction in usage resulting from criminalization has sufficient benefits to outweigh the harm caused by treating the distribution and use of certain drugs as a criminal activity.
This is why trials have been conducted, to see what actually occurs as opposed to what people "think" will occur.
After the trials, open-minded intelligent people will replace their opinions with evidence, and make decisions on that basis.
Unfortunately, this is one subject that tends to attract opinions from people who are not open-minded in this respect. There is of course a wide spectrum of policy options available, all with different consequences. For example, it would be possible to treat the distribution of the drugs as an offence while permitting their use (the distributors, but not the users, would then be criminally liable). Equally, one could permit both distribution and use, while prohibiting advertising, or imposing high taxes for example. Different policies can be applied to different drugs, of course, as is in fact already the case (alcohol and tobacco are treated very differently from cannabis currently). This is an area in which no outcome can be good for everyone affected and in which it is necessary to make trade-offs to arrive at an appropriate policy. The drugs concerned are (usually) addictive and harmful to health, but shifting the problem into the realm of criminal activity incurs substantial costs also. I doubt there are many on this list who would be qualified to make policy recommendations related to drug laws. I know I'm not so qualified