So-called „libertarian” arguments assume that the adult citizen is best judged by what is good or bad for him – and that he should therefore have the last word when it comes to his own body. Drug prohibition violates civil liberties. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that because drugs are such a horrible thing, it is acceptable to circumvent the Fourth Amendment (which deals with search and seizure) to make it easier to obtain convictions in drug cases. In light of the above, it does not matter whether drug use – in itself and regardless of how the drugs are obtained – is good or bad: people take drugs, and the war on drugs is a costly, ineffective and extremely harmful policy to stop them. So the question is: how should drug policy be reformed in the face of the failure of the war on drugs? A recent report by Transform, a UK think tank, points out that there are already a number of regulatory frameworks used to deal with legal recreational and medical drugs, which could currently include illicit substances. The report identifies five drug delivery models. Supervised use: Medications are provided and taken only under medical supervision. This is already used for some opioid maintenance programs, the most famous in Switzerland, where addicts are given heroin to inject locally. Finally, proponents of drug legalization point out that drugs have always been used by human societies and should therefore continue to be available.
Finally, what would happen to major suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all major markets? Would trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illegal businesses? What would happen to the countries of origin? Would they benefit, or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly emerge elsewhere? Such questions have not even been systematically asked, let alone seriously studied. One of the main arguments in favor of legalizing drugs is that other harmful drugs are already legal: especially alcohol and tobacco, but sugar and coffee are also sometimes mentioned. 3. When arguments are advanced for or against the legalization of „soft” drugs, simplifications and generalizations should be avoided, especially the politicization of a deeply human and ethical issue. Some believe that moderate use of certain substances classified as „drugs” would not lead to biochemical dependence or physical side effects. Others would be better off knowing and helping addicts than leaving them in a state of illegality to help them and protect society. These are the arguments put forward in favour of legalising drugs. 4 The difference between drug and alcohol addiction was emphasized by the Holy Father John Paul 11 in these terms: „It is true that there is a clear difference between drug use and alcohol consumption: if moderate use of drugs as a drink does not violate moral principles, only its abuse can be condemned; on the contrary, drug use is always illegal because it involves an unjustified and unreasonable renunciation of thought, desire and acting as a free person” (, 19, VII, 1992, No. 1). But, of course, it is desirable that our laws be rational and treat similar relevant cases in the same way. This is clearly not the case at present, where alcohol, tobacco and sugar (and perhaps other drugs) enjoy a special status that is not available for other, perhaps less harmful, drugs.
Some sort of rational harmonisation of the legal treatment of these various drugs would certainly be desirable. When it comes to this complex issue, it is important to be clear and specific about what we are discussing, e.g. legalization versus decriminalization, cannabis only versus all drugs. As in the past, some observers will no doubt see the solution in much harsher penalties to deter both suppliers and users of illicit psychoactive substances. Others will argue that the answer lies not in more enforcement and tougher penalties, but in fewer penalties. In particular, they will argue that the edifice of national laws and international conventions that collectively prohibit the production, sale and use of large numbers of drugs for non-medical or scientific purposes has proven to be physically harmful, socially divisive, prohibitive and ultimately counterproductive by creating the very incentives that perpetuate a violent black market for illicit drugs. They will also conclude that the only logical step for the United States is to „legalize” drugs – essentially by repealing and dismantling current drug laws and enforcement mechanisms, just as America abandoned its brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. Surely doctors should know about neurotransmitters and how they work in the brain? Another important decision is the decision between recreational and medical drug use.
Most societies agree that most drugs, including addictive ones, can be used therapeutically by health professionals; whereas they would not allow the same drugs to be used „for pleasure”. Criminal drug prohibition has not eliminated or significantly reduced drug use. Drugs remain one of the biggest public health problems. Although the use of some substances has decreased over time, new drugs have entered the market and become popular. In the United States, after the crack epidemic in the 80s and early 90s and the rise of methamphetamine in the 90s and early 21st, there is an increase in methamphetamine. It is currently experiencing a prescription opioid crisis. The number of victims of these opioids, mostly purchased from pharmacies, has exceeded the combined deaths from cocaine and heroin overdoses. There are millions of addicts to these substances, which are usually prescribed by a doctor. This is a relevant twist on the drug problem, as it shows that legalization or criminalization cannot always provide the desired solution to the problem of drug use. On the other hand, there is also evidence of success in reducing drug abuse through legislative reform. This is the case with the Portuguese decriminalisation of drug use, which has shown a dramatic decrease in drug-related crime, overdoses and HIV infection.
2. In the space of a few decades, drug addiction has gone from relatively limited consumption, confined to a rich and complacent social class, to a mass phenomenon that mainly affects young people, destroys lives, cuts many promises, and that no country has yet been able to reduce or even control. ” [2] Children and adolescents trivialize drug use in schools in front of their helpless teachers. This is the future of our society, which is threatened by drug addiction. That is why young people are our main concerns, young people and young adults: because they are today the first victims of drugs. There is a better option: a regulated market, similar to the one we have for alcohol and tobacco, with controls on who can buy what, when, where and how.