Explanation Legalization

Marijuana legalization activists have a secret weapon: mothers. Proponents of libertarianism support the legalization of what they see as victimless crimes, such as recreational drug and alcohol use, gun ownership, and prostitution. The most obvious case is the regulation of adolescents` and young adults` access to drugs. Whatever the regime, it is hard to imagine that the drugs that are now banned would be more readily available than alcohol and tobacco today. Would there be a black market for drugs for youth, or would the regulatory system be as permeable as the current one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to both questions would reduce the appeal of legalization. Many arguments seem to make legalization a convincing alternative to today`s prohibitionist policies. In addition to undermining black market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could eliminate or at least significantly reduce the very problems that most concern the public: the crime, corruption and violence that accompany the functioning of illicit drug markets. It would also likely reduce the damage caused by the lack of quality controls for illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle parts and other unsanitary practices. In addition, governments could abandon costly and largely futile efforts to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and imprison offenders by spending the money saved to educate people not to use drugs and to treat those who become addicted. An exactly parallel case is the legalization of this common tenant right in England, known as copyhold. In May, an Irish referendum will be held on the legalization of same-sex marriage. As well as losses, such as the widespread legalization of same-sex marriage. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana.

This usually means that some small amounts of personal consumption are a civil or local violation, not a state crime (or the lowest offense without the possibility of imprisonment). In 2014, and before the successful legalization vote, the District of Columbia passed a bill that passed congressional scrutiny and made possession or transfer of an ounce or less of marijuana without compensation a civil offense. In the context of U.S. immigration, the term “legalization” is colloquially used to refer to a process by which a person who is in the country illegally can obtain lawful permanent residence. Since 1929, U.S. law has provided for the legalization process known as a registry, in which the applicant only has to prove that he or she has resided continuously in the country since a certain specified “registration date” (originally 1921; now 1972) and is not inadmissible for other reasons (criminal record, etc.). [1] [2] One legalization proposal that has recently been widely discussed was the DREAM law. Unfortunately, the U.S. government – including the Clinton administration – has done little to improve the debate. Although he has always opposed a withdrawal of the ban, his position does not appear to have been based on a thorough examination of the potential costs and benefits. The belief that legalization would lead to an immediate and dramatic increase in drug use is so taken for granted that no further studies are needed. But if this is indeed the likely conclusion of a study, there is cause for concern, apart from the criticism that relatively small amounts of taxpayers` money were wasted to show what everyone believed in the beginning? Would such a result in no way help to justify the continuation of the existing policy and to convincingly silence those who, admittedly, never call for more than a small minority, who call for legalization? As is clear, the legalization of drugs is not a policy option suitable for a simplistic or superficial debate.

It requires dissection and revision of an order that has been conspicuously absent, despite the constant attention it receives. Apart from the examination of some very broadly defined proposals, there has been no detailed assessment of the operational significance of legalisation. There is not even a generally accepted glossary of terms that allows for intellectually rigorous exchange. As a result, legalization means different things to different people. For example, some use legalization interchangeably with “decriminalization,” which usually refers to the elimination of criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. Others equate, at least implicitly, legalization with complete deregulation, without acknowledging the extent to which currently legally available drugs are subject to strict controls. No state has legalized cannabis so far. It remains a U.S.-controlled substance that makes possession and distribution illegal. However, at the time of writing, 26 U.S. states have passed medical cannabis laws, cannabis decriminalization laws, or both. See Table 1. A major concern with this comment is that the medical use of smoked cannabis plants and the legalization/decriminalization of cannabis are advocated in a manner that bypasses normal FDA testing and regulatory processes otherwise required for all drugs marketed in the United States for human use.

By bypassing this process, stakeholders allow state legislators and/or voters to decide on proposals with specific public health and medical treatment implications without necessarily being qualified to understand the relevant scientific evidence. Proponents of legalization admit that consumption would likely increase, but counter that it is not clear that the increase would be very large or time-consuming, especially if legalization were paired with appropriate public education programs. They, too, cite historical evidence to support their claims, noting that opium, heroin, and cocaine use had already begun to decline before prohibition went into effect, that alcohol consumption did not suddenly increase after prohibition was repealed, and that the decriminalization of cannabis use in 11 U.S. states in the 1970s did not lead to a dramatic increase in use. Some also point to the legal sale of cannabis products through regulated outlets in the Netherlands, which also does not appear to have significantly encouraged consumption by Dutch nationals. Opinion polls showing that most Americans would not rush to try previously banned drugs that suddenly became available are also being used to bolster the case for legalization. More importantly, such discussions are unnecessary until the nature of the purported regulatory regime is clarified. It would be surprising, for example, if the use of legalized drugs did not increase, if they were as available on the market as alcohol and tobacco products are today, with sophisticated packaging, marketing and advertising. But more restrictive systems could have very different results.

In any case, the risk of increased drug use could be acceptable if legalization could dramatically, if not completely, eradicate crime linked to the black market in illicit drugs, while making some forms of drug use safer.