“In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world.”
This sentence was taken from an article in The Economist published few months ago, and I thought it would be a good idea to bring it back here on our blog, since it’s about legalizing drugs. The Economist is certainly not well-known for being liberal, yet the magazine has been advocating the legalization of drugs for over 20 years and has published articles on the topics a few times, but still there is no changes. This article is definitely a must read, since it has greatly changed the perceptions of many about legalizing drugs among Liberals and Tories altogether.
The article basically argues that policies on drug addiction in the last 100 years have failed (is it me or we’ve already heard that before?), and by legalizing drugs we could actually regulate and control them better. The Economist doesn’t see legalization as the perfect solution, but as the lesser of 2 evils.
It’s a short read and it will probably change your life, or maybe just your day, but it’ll make you think for sure. The business student you are should also be amazed at this business opportunity, or not. Thoughts, ideas and screams of anger are welcome in the comment section.
BWiles
sunnyhoshingchan
changmai
mattbaril
Sounds like a very interesting read. I agree that prohibition just isn’t working. New solutions need to be considered. The public needs to be educated and people have to start thinking outside of the box. If you can’t get rid of it completely then at least regulate and control it. Thanks for sharing this post.
Very interesting article. Legalizing drugs turn over drug issues into a health problem, Many people are taking drugs the first time is because it brings out an excitement for getting into a banned area. Not very sure about how practical when drugs becomes legal and has different level of taxation and regulation, but as it mentioned, if the fund collected can be used on public education, that definitely will get more benefit than the negative effect it brings.
The article makes a good point.
It seems that around the world, hardline policies against drugs seems to be failing miserabliy. Not only are the developed nations still suffering from drug usage, but criminal organizations are thriving too.
If the government does lift prohibition, then I guess they would save alot of money on fighting crimininal organizations and thus they could use the money they save to help the people suffering from drugs.
Not only would they save money, but they could tax drugs and the people growing and selling drugs. So they would win twice by saving money against reinforcing prohibition and getting tax from drug activities. I think they should use all the tax money to help drug addicts with new programs, treatments and support. The money they would save from stopping reinforcement could be spend on schools, hospitals or whatever is best.
If i may play the devil’s advocate on a more philosophical level for a sec, what are your personal opinions on drug usage? Objectively speaking would you classify drug abuse as bad or good? If you classify drug abuse as bad, do you see perhaps more of a philosophical dilemma of decriminalizing (inherently allowing drug usage, thus also being bad?) to cure bad like drug addiction?
great research guys! appreciated following your blog over the past bit.
Hey Jason,
Thanks for playing the devil’s advocate, it makes things more interesting and it forces all of us to think a bit more
We obviously don’t think that drug abuse is good, we all know the psychological damages and health issues it creates. As Rob said yesterday at our booth, no one wants to stay a drug addict, it’s just not a life.
Now, we can approach the drug addiction issue from 2 perspectives:
1. It’s bad, wrong and dangerous and we ban all non-medical drugs
2. It’s bad, wrong and dangerous ans we help people to first not get into drugs and if they get into it, then we help them getting out
The first option is purely ethical and some of us think that’s what we should do. There is no room for compromise.
The second option is the one we defend. We think it is ethically wrong to abandon drug addicts and let them become prostitutes, homeless or criminals and let them die in our streets with no help. Not giving support to a human being in needs and letting this human being die because of some philosophical believes that drug is wrong and prohibition is the only way to go doesn’t make any sense to us. It appears to us that letting someone die by not helping is worst than legalizing drugs so we can help drug addicts who want to quit and save lives.
Some, maybe many, don’t share our opinion and that’s why we have a long way to go, but eventually the respect for human life should prevail on black and white policies.
Drug addiction, an very serious social problem, is a pathological condition. The disorder of addiction involves the progression of acute drug use to the development of drug-seeking behavior. Drug legalization probably would have better control in the drug usage regulation but it is not THE solution for solving the social problem. In the contrary, it may provide a legal channel for those drug-seekers to obtain the drugs more easily.
I’m not too sure I agree with this. If you look at cigarettes for instance, which is a weak drug, they are legally available everywhere at prices that most of us can afford. Still the number of smokers has been decreasing over the last decade. I give this example only because I don’t believe that making drugs legal would increase the number of drug addicts.
On the other hand, it’s not difficult to find drugs here in Vancouver. I’m pretty sure you can get cocaine in a matter of minutes if you go DTES. It would probably be more difficult to get legalized drug than it is right now. They would be sold in pharmacies and be under tight control and people under legal age couldn’t get them. But by being legal and widely available in every pharmacy is likely to drive dealers out of business, therefore letting our government to tax those drugs and the people working in the industry. This extra money can be used to help drug addicts.
I agree with you that legalizing drugs is not THE solution, but we see it as the beginning of the end. There will always be drug addicts, no matter what we do, just like there will always be cigarette smokers, but legalizing drugs could decrease the number of drug addicts and more importantly would give us the means to support them in funding treatments.