Arguments for and against drug prohibition

The prohibition of drugs is a subject of considerable controversy. The following is a presentation of arguments for and against drug prohibition.

Education and Research
In PiHKAL, Alexander Shulgin, argues that the psychedelics help us learn about ourselves; indeed that is where the name "psychedelic" (mind expanding) comes from. They may also teach us about the nature of reality itself.

Moral, Spiritual and Religious
Many of the arguments for drug prohibition are based on perceptions of drugs as dangerous to people, which creates the basis for a moral opposition to drug use. Some of these perceptions are based on common knowledge or scientific evidence, indicating how certain drugs are detrimental to individuals and communities, while other perceptions are based on popular myths. Those who are against prohibition argue that even when drugs are dangerous to people, it is much easier to control their use and minimize harm if drugs are legal. The decriminalization of drugs would then be perceived as a more ethical way to deal with the problem.

Some religious groups including the União do Vegetal, Native American Church and the Rastafari movement use psychoactive substances as sacrament in religious rituals. In some religious practice, drugs are sometimes used as a conduit to an oceanic feeling or divine union, equated with mysticism or entheogenic ('that which causes God to be within an individual') experiences. In others, the 'entactogenic' qualities of drugs are used to enhance feelings of empathy among congregations.

Almost all national governments have signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, amongst other human rights treaties, as a set of moral standards for the world to live by. One of the fundamental rights enshrined in international human rights law is the right to freedom of thought, which is violated by a blanket prohibition of drugs.

Altered states of consciousness enable many people to push the boundaries of human experience, knowledge and creativity. There is thus a moral imperative to experiment with drugs in terms of human progress, teleological development, or just increased artistic creativity; such ideas are central to Cognitive Liberty, Stoned Ape Theory and Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception.

Personal freedom
Authors such as Timothy Leary, Aldous Huxley and Terence McKenna believed what persons do in private should not be regulated by the government. It is argued that persons should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, as long as they do not harm others. Such arguments often cite the harm principle of philosopher John Stuart Mill who urged that the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign' and 'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.' This argument was used in relation to recreational drug use by Aleister Crowley. The argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and as such the government has no right to prohibit it or punish drug consumers, much like the government does not forbid overeating, which causes significantly more deaths per year. This can be equated with the quest for freedom of thought.

Stigma and health concerns
Despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, drugs have become more accessible, cheaper, and more potent. The illegality of injectable drugs leads to a scarcity of needles which causes an increase in HIV infections. The money spent on both increased health costs due to HIV infections and drug prohibition itself causes a drain upon society. Despite the fact that most drug offenders are non-violent, the stigma attached to a conviction can prevent employment and education.

A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl with which their heroin had been cut, the more toxic (and easier to make) derivative MDA sold as MDMA, etc.

Children Being Lured Into The Illegal Drug Trade
Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our streets" (qtd. in Boaz). Additionally, drug dealers show off expensive jewelry and clothing to young children (Duke and Gross 33). Some of these children are interested in making fast money instead of working legitimate jobs (Kane 157). Drug decriminalization would remove the "glamorous Al Capone-type traffickers who are role-models for the young" (Wink 111).

The lack of government regulation and control over the lucrative illegal drug market has created a large population of unregulated drug dealers who lure many children into the illegal drug trade. The U.S. government's most recent 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reported that nationwide over 800,000 adolescents ages 12–17 sold illegal drugs during the previous 12 months preceding the survey. The 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that nationwide 25.4&thinsp;% of students had been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug by someone on school property. The prevalence of having been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property ranged from 15.5&thinsp;% to 38.7&thinsp;% across state CDC surveys (median: 26.1&thinsp;%) and from 20.3&thinsp;% to 40.0&thinsp;% across local surveys (median: 29.4&thinsp;%).

Despite more than $&thinsp;7 billion spent annually towards arresting and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people across the country for marijuana offenses in 2005, the federally-funded Monitoring the Future Survey reports about 85&thinsp;% of high school seniors find marijuana “easy to obtain.” That figure has remained virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7&thinsp;% in three decades of national surveys.

Economics
The United States efforts at drug prohibition started out with a US$&thinsp;350 million budget in 1971, and is currently (in 2006) a US$&thinsp;30 billion campaign. These numbers only include direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, and as such only represent part of the total cost of prohibition. This $&thinsp;30 billion figure rises dramatically once other issues, such as the economic impact of holding 400,000 prisoners on prohibition violations, are factored in.

The war on drugs is extremely costly to such societies that outlaw drugs in terms of taxpayer money, lives, productivity, the inability of law enforcement to pursue mala in se crimes, and social inequality. Some proponents of decriminalization say that the financial and social costs of drug law enforcement far exceed the damages that the drugs themselves cause. For instance, in 1999 close to 60,000 prisoners (3.3&thinsp;% of the total incarcerated population) convicted of violating marijuana laws were behind bars at a cost to taxpayers of some $&thinsp;1.2 billion per year. In 1980, the total jail and prison population was 540,000, about one-quarter the size it is today. Drug offenders accounted for 6&thinsp;% of all prisoners. Today drug offenders account for nearly 25&thinsp;%. Libertarian Party opponents to the drug war have stated that if the US government decriminalized only marijuana, US taxes could be reduced by one third.

The creation of drug cartels
Mass arrests of local growers of marijuana, for example, not only increase the price of local drugs, but protects the major drug cartels from competition. Only major retailers that can handle massive shipments, have their own small fleet of aircraft, troops to defend the caravans and other sophisticated methods of eluding the police (such as lawyers), can survive by this regulation of the free market by the government

Effect on producer countries
The United States' "War on Drugs" has added considerably to the political instability in South America. The huge profits to be made from cocaine and other South American-grown drugs are largely due to the fact that it is illegal in the wealthy neighbouring nation. This drives people in the relatively poor countries of Colombia, Peru and Brazil to break their own laws in organising the cultivation, preparation and trafficking of cocaine to the States. This has allowed criminal, paramilitary and guerrilla groups to reap huge profits, exacerbating already serious law-and-order and political problems. Coca farming has been practiced for centuries in Andean countries, producing coca leaves which are then chewed for their mild stimulant effect. Many of these farmers' livelihoods (whether or not they are supplying the cocaine trade) are destroyed by U.S. sponsored herbicide spraying, usually by air. Producer countries are also given further economic stimulus to grow illicit drugs as a cash crop by the dumping of subsidised farming products (fruit, vegetables, grain etc.) produced by Western countries (predominantly US and EU agricultural surpluses) (see BBC reference, below).

Recently, this has become a huge problem in Afghanistan as well, which went from producing practically no drugs in 2000 having been banned by the Taliban to cultivating as much as 90&thinsp;% of the world's opium (6,100 tonnes according to a United Nations report from September 2006). This has destabilized the government to the point that the top NATO commander in Afghanistan recently warned that the majority of Afghanistan's citizens could support a Taliban return by the summer if conditions do not improve.

Furthermore, the sale of the illegal drugs produces an influx of dollars that is outside the formal economy, and puts pressure on the currency exchange keeping the dollar low and making the export of legal products more difficult.

Consistency
It has been suggested that ending prohibition could reduce the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as The Netherlands.

Since alcohol prohibition ended and the War on Drugs began, there has been much debate over the issue of consistency among legislators with regard to drug prohibition. Many anti-prohibition activists focus on the well-documented dangers of alcohol (such as alcoholism, cystisis, domestic violence, brain and liver damage). In addition to anecdotal evidence, they cite statistics to show more deaths caused by drunk driving than by drivers under the influence of marijuana, more assaults instigated by drunks, and more property damage.

There have very few cases of death from marijuana overdose recorded over the last 100 years and a 2002 DAWN report for the USA records two overdoses where marijuana was the only drug found Legal drugs however, have been the cause of more than half a million deaths a year: 480,000 from tobacco smoking-related illnesses and 80,000 from alcohol abuse. Together, tobacco and alcohol cause about 20&thinsp;% of all yearly deaths in the USA, which would be preventable by direct prohibition.

This inconsistency between the harm caused and the legal status of these common drugs undermines the declared motives of the law enforcement agencies to reduce harm by prohibition of marijuana.

Consistency between drugs
The belief that "hard" drugs such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences than "soft" drugs such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine.

This disparity was lessened during the Clinton administration when the Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act changed the ratio to 10 to 1. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of offenders convicted for selling crack are poor and/or black, while the majority of those convicted for selling cocaine are not. In fact, Blacks only constitute 13&thinsp;% of all known drug users, but represent 35&thinsp;% of all arrests for drug possession and 74&thinsp;% of all those sentenced to prison for drug possession. In addition, the convention of selling crack in heavily patrolled neighborhoods makes crack dealers easier targets for arrest than cocaine dealers, who tend to operate in private areas, such as dance clubs and college campuses. If this does not demonstrate that anti-drug laws are useless in themselves (so the argument goes), it shows that they are clearly being implemented inequitably.

Same policy for distinct drugs
Many drug policies group all illegal drugs into a single category. Since drugs drastically vary in their effects, dosages, methods of production, and consumption the arguments for or against drug prohibition are shammed.

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws
Some consider the war on drugs, at least in the United States, to be a "war on some drugs" … and some drug users. Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize non-whites more harshly and more often than whites, and to penalize the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes. The belief that "hard drugs" such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences than "soft drugs" such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine.

Crime/terrorism
Critics of drug prohibition often cite the fact that the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies to support the argument that legalization of drugs could have similar effects. Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake" (Riga 53). When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.

Drug money has been called a major source of income for terrorist organizations. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terrorism. While politicians blame drug users for being a major source of financing terrorists, no clear evidence of this link has been provided. US government agencies and government officials have been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions in events such as the Iran-Contra Affair, and Manuel Noriega but the isolated nature of these events precludes them from being major sources of financing.

Over 2,000 people in Mexico alone have been murdered in drug trafficking related violence in 2006. 

Legal dilemmas
Drug prohibition has created several legal dilemmas. For example many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as damaging equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.

Several drugs such as Dimethyltryptamine, Morphine and GHB are illegal to possess but are also inherently present in all humans as a result of endogenous synthesis. Since some jurisdictions classify possession of drugs to include having the drug present in the blood in any concentration, all residents of such jurisdictions are technically in possession of multiple illegal drugs at all times.

User cost of drugs
When the cost of drugs increases, drugs users are more likely to commit crimes in order to obtain money to buy the expensive drugs (Duke 115). Legalizing drugs would make drugs reasonably cheap (Kane 155).

Legitimate medical use of illegal drugs
Many cultures have used, and still use the same drugs that are illegal under prohibition for both medicine, and comfort with success. It can be argued that if the benefits of a drug can be made clear then the prohibition of the drug is unfounded.

It has been shown that there may be legitimate medical uses to various illegal drugs, such as use of MDMA for cognitive enhancement in people with Parkinson's Disease, or its administration for people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, such as people who have been raped. The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies is a non-profit research and educational organization which assists scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of MDMA, psychedelic drugs and marijuana. MAPS' mission is to sponsor scientific research designed to develop psychedelics and marijuana into FDA-approved prescription medicines, and to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of these drugs.

Cannabis is an example of a mainly illegal drug that can be used medicinally. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+).

Illegal drug impurities
Often illegal drugs are purchased in the underground market, there is no care for hygiene, and drugs may be cut with other substances or sold under different guises to increase supply, sale, potential profit, or user addiction potential. This can be dangerous as even though numerous illegal drugs have very low toxicity levels (low potential for overdose) and low addiction potential their safety status can be altered dramatically if they contain other chemicals of which the buyer is unaware. This can increase the potential for unexpected effects, overdoses, and drug dependence. For instance, tablets sold as MDMA have commonly been found to contain methamphetamine as the primary active ingredient or include methamphetamine in addition to other drugs. Methamphetamine has much higher comparative addictive potential than MDMA, and a higher risk of overdose as demonstrated by its LD50s. (In actual fact MDMA is methylenedioxymethamphetamine and of course is not a combination of other drugs as is often proposed by teenage abusers.)

Dozens of people died in one year in Cook County alone, in relation to ingesting heroin unknowingly cut with fentanyl. Black tar heroin has been known to carry wound botulism. Variable heroin purity, active cutting agents, and contaminated product is one of the major dangers of heroin use, and is strictly caused by prohibition.

Use of more dangerous but more easily accessible drugs
Because some drugs are difficult to make or acquire under prohibition, users and producers may instead turn to more dangerous drugs that are easier to obtain or attempt dangerous procedures to make drugs covertly. For example, because a drug like cocaine is too expensive, users may turn to another drug like methamphetamine that is arguably more dangerous, but also more easily synthesized.

Another example is when a drug is too hard to traffic and sell easily, some users may turn to making it themselves to save money or to keep an easy supply of the drug. If the user is unqualified in chemistry, unwanted reactions may occur. Illict synthesis of methamphetamine often results in an end product dangerously contaminated with toxic byproducts, including chemicals from the reaction such as toluene, iodine or phosphorus, or potent neurotoxins such as 4-iodomethamphetamine. Similarly homebake heroin may contain contaminants such as pyridine and acetic anhydride. Also dealers often dilute drugs in order to make limited supplies stretch further, using any white powder that comes to hand including chalk, salt or flour. Many people have died from injecting drugs contaminated in this way.

The synthesis of Nitrous oxide from ammonium nitrate is another example; explosive byproducts are easily created, which means that property damage or severe injuries are likely. Instances are known of individuals suffering death or severe injury after inhaling the highly toxic gas nitric oxide having mistaken it for nitrous oxide.

Due to the lack of availability of other drugs, some communities have seen a rise of comparatively more dangerous drugs such as inhalant abuse. This increased use of dangerous legal products, according to some critics, has been more harmful to society than regulated sales of the currently illegal drugs would have been.

Deliriant drugs such as nutmeg and datura are not illegal, even though they are both more likely than most illegal drugs to cause death from acute overdose, and have a higher tendency to cause confusion and potentially violent unpredictable behaviour. Some medicines such as Benadryl (diphenhydramine) and Dramamine (dimenhydrinate) are sometimes taken in dangerous overdoses when people try to use them to achieve deliriant effects.

Toad licking has also been noted to cause deaths, for instance in an incident where a man died from confusing the hallucinogenic Colorado River Toad with another kind of toad that sweats powerful cardiotoxic steroids.

Block to research
The illegality of many recreational drugs may be dissuading research into new, more effective and perhaps safer recreational drugs. For example, it has been proposed that a safer substitute to alcohol with many of the same desired effects could be created imparting many health and safety benefits to society. Furthermore, the compensation received and knowledge gained in the creation of new recreational drugs might allow for more basic research into human biology, treatments for medical conditions such as depression, and general improvements in the functionality of humans. Also, the illegality of recreational drugs may be hindering the ability of companies to discover and market drugs that could be used for recreation, but could also be effective as medical treatments.

Moral and religious
Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind. `

For example, the Qur'an advises against the use of 'al-khamri' (intoxicants, derived from 'khamara', to cover, i.&thinsp;e. substances that 'cover one's mind' or 'cloud one's judgment'), saying 'in them there is a gross sin, and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.' (2:219), and that they are 'abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them, that you may succeed.'

In Judaeo-Christianity, the Bible is famously silent on drugs that are illicit today, though makes frequent mention of wine. Isaiah 5:11–12 was a key quote of the Temperance movement:

In Scientology, drugs are viewed as a cause of spiritual damage and bodily contamination, with addiction being an obstacle to self-fulfillment.

In Buddhism, it is considered wrong to use drugs that lead to carelessness or heedlessness (the fifth precept of The Five Precepts).

In secular philosophy, as drug use is largely focused on individual or group leisure, drugtaking is sometimes criticised as a self-centred, non-altruistic or selfish activity, and is subject to similar moral criticism levelled at egoism and hedonism. This subject also brings up the question of how heavily morality should be legislated.

Drug prohibition as a solution to problems of society
Some proponents of drug prohibition, such as members of the Temperance movement, support drug prohibition on the basis that many of the perceived problems or flaws of society are caused by the use of drugs or drug addiction. As to maintain consistency with this stance, these proponents often call for prohibition of alcohol. Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts and drug pushers (attracted by profits) if drugs are decriminalized. They believe addicts are more likely to commit more crimes because their minds are altered (some drugs may cause harmful behaviour), much as drunk criminals do sometimes.

Economics and psychosocial arguments
While a distinction is often made between 'problem use' of drugs (addiction, alcoholism, binge drinking etc.) and recreational use of drugs (e.&thinsp;g. in clubbing or party settings), possession and sale of illicit drugs remains illegal (ref. the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).

Psychoactive substances, licit or illicit, typically bear a substantial cost to society. Social costs may take numerous forms, for example short- and long-term healthcare provision; crime committed by users to maintain their habit; harm reduction programs; addiction treatment; public nuisance and third party damage; absence from work and lost productivity; crime committed by drug users while under the influence; and, often primarily, costs associated with identifying/ arresting/ prosecuting/ incarcerating/ reintegrating into society people involved in the drug trade.

In the case of licit psychoactive substances (e.&thinsp;g. alcohol and tobacco), such costs are easily ascertainable and are rarely redeemed by tax revenue or the economic/employment contribution made by their manufacturers. The World Health Organization published a Global Status Report on Alcohol (2004). In this report, the social and economic costs of alcohol abuse in the US was estimated at $&thinsp;184.6 billion (1998). In the case of illegal drugs, it is harder to define precise figures for the cost of drugs given the underground nature of the market, although existing estimates for social costs are high: the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 2006) places the cost at $&thinsp;181 billion per year in the US. Moreover, in the case of illegal drugs, there is no revenue from taxation to subsidise such societal costs. There are also additional costs from the enforcement of drug laws and imprisonment of offenders.

An additional, micro-economic argument is that drug users (especially problem users) tend to spend a considerable portion of their day-to-day budget on drugs. As any legalisation is likely to be accompanied by high taxation of the drugs, problem drug users—or those with borderline-heavy drug consumption—might increase current spending, particularly as they will no longer suffer the current stigma attached to purchasing from a dealer or criminal (for example, cigarettes in many countries are as expensive as crack, while cannabis typically offers cheaper intoxication than alcohol ). While prohibitionists may be criticised for paternalistic attitudes to protecting an individual from self-harm, there exists a genuine risk that, with no legal thresholds to purchase and a commercial interest for the (legal) vendor to sell as much as possible, users might be tempted to 'max out' on their drug spending.

One economic argument for defending prohibition of certain substances is to protect traditional producers of legal psychoactive substances (in particular alcohol) from competing with 'newly-legalised entrants' into the recreational drug market. The argument (an example of protectionism) runs that legal drugs are valuable cultural artifacts and provide a livelihood to entire industries, populations and regions. To use the alcohol example, today's products have emerged over centuries to provide intoxication and delivery of dose in a societally-acceptable fashion. Low-potency products (beer/wine) in particular have evolved to extend sought-after effects to provide sustainable revenues for retail outlets. It is uncertain whether illegal drugs, after prohibition, could sustain similar levels of economic activity or employment, and whether increased polydrug consumption would threaten traditional, legal drug sellers.

Health
Some prohibitionists argue that illegalizing drugs limits access to them and therefore decreases their negative affects on society. Possible immediate detrimental health effects include altered awareness, reduced motor control, poisoning, and death by overdose. Prohibited drugs may also detrimentally impact broader long term measures of health and well being such as educational performance, standard-of-living, and incidence of depression.

There is concern over a variety of other possible links between health problems and specific prohibited drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents); physical addiction and substance cravings; co-morbid diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C; psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis, and others. Health risk profiles may vary substantially between different prohibited drugs.

In many cases though there is contention as to whether apparent correlations between use of a prohibited drug and an increased health risk results from the drug use itself or results from other factors such as the prohibition of drugs (or related social/ sociological/ legal issues related to such prohibition), economic situations, or social situations.

The U.S. government has argued that illegal drugs are "far more deadly than alcohol" because "[a]lthough alcohol is used by seven times as many people as drugs, the number of deaths induced by those substances is not far apart." However, there is evidence that many illicit drugs pose comparatively fewer health dangers than certain licit drugs (e.&thinsp;g. alcohol and tobacco). In the UK, an average of 500,000 people take ecstasy every weekend, 40 million are social drinkers, 11 million are "at risk" or "problem" drinkers, and 9 million smoke cigarettes, resulting in 40 ecstasy-related deaths a year, 6500 deaths due to alcohol and 120 000 deaths due to smoking, making the per user risk of ecstasy on par with alcohol (about 1:10,000 occasions) but below tobacco.  

Gateway Drugs
The US Government and others have argued that certain drugs (such as cannabis) act as gateways to use of harder drugs such as heroin, either because of social contact or because of an increasing search for a better high.

Crime, Terrorism and Social Order
There is an argument that much crime and terrorism is drug related or drug funded and that prohibition should reduce this. Experts like Andreas von Bülow and Milton Friedman consent that almost every serious crime an terrorism is funded by illegal drugs but they don't agree that prohibition can reduce these phenomenons. In fact the prohibition protects the drug cartel.

Economic
Whilst it must be accepted that the costs of drug-related crime, for countries with a state provided health service, are large, several other factors must be taken into account. Firstly, the taxation of these drugs, coupled with increased employment opportunites, could offset some of these costs. However, evidence from tobacco and alcohol suggests that not all the costs are offset. It can be sometimes seen, however, that a secondary reduction of costs is often passed over—in countries such as Britain, the detrimental health effects of the drugs can actually save the state money, as death at around the age of 60 would greatly decrease social security and retirement payments. Legalisation would also allow far cheaper drugs (heroin and opiates are very cheap to produce), upon which a great deal of taxation could be placed to increase the offsetting of those costs. Moreover, these costs are still being incurred by the illegal use of illicit drugs, but none of it can be recouped as there is no taxation.

A second problem that arises from prohibition is the in-elasticity of demand for illegal drugs. The War on Drugs causes the supply of drugs to decrease; meanwhile, the demand for the drugs stays the same. This causes the price of drugs to increase, yet the amount of drugs sold remains constant, thus generating higher revenue, i.&thinsp;e., profits for suppliers.

Gateway Drugs
Some people say the only reason cannabis users are exposed to harder drugs is because they are having to go through drug dealers or exposing themselves to people and places where they are available.

Possible stopgap solutions
Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might satisfy both sides of this issue as well as solving many of the social problems that drugs cause. In a compromise, drugs would remain illegal but drug addicts who are non-violent and are convicted for drug possession could go to a drug rehabilitation clinic instead of prison. As an example, treatment is only currently available for approximately 15&thinsp;% of the U.S. drug addict population. Under a decriminalization scheme, some people convicted of minor drug offenses may be sentenced to rehabilitation instead of prison. Drug addicts would then be treated as the diseased, and not treated as criminals. Possession of drugs would be an infraction rather than a felony. Drug dealers, violent drug addicts/possessers and addicts who possess a large quantity of drugs (probably for sale and not personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons.

This could greatly reduce overcrowded prison populations and increase real prison time for serious criminals such as murderers. For example, a murderer who is sentenced 20 years to life, but who only serves 7 actual years due to prison overcrowding, will serve about 10 years of real time when the compromise reduces prison population. By being soft on minor criminals, penalties become harder on major criminals who commit victim crimes.

One solution has been described thus: Decriminalization of drugs would allow addicts to receive medical aid and free drugs from the clinic. Drug addicts would come back to the clinic regularly for the free drugs. Drug dealers would be unable to sell their drugs to addicts who get the drugs for free. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drugs are illegal in order to sell drugs. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminals. The number of robberies would be reduced—formerly committed by addicts who spend the stolen money on drugs. There would be fewer police deaths because there would be no shootouts between drug dealers and police. Drug pushers would not be walking around asking people if they want to buy drugs because they will go to jail, as usual.

Decriminalization has several central problems. Providing addicts with drugs requires additional funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this essentially constitute partial legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may exacerbate problems. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market culture (i.&thinsp;e. organized crime and dealer disputes), prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market culture. Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess, or if not actually legal, only a civil offense.

Critics of partial decriminalization—who may either be on the side of prohibition or legalization—warn that the decriminalization of a soft drug (for example, cannabis) in an area may lead to increased sale of harder drugs (for example, heroin). The problems associated with illegal heroin use—fatalities, muggings, burglaries, use of infected needles—would rise in the area, possibly leading the authorities to conclude that the full legalization of cannabis would exacerbate the situation. (Although in the Netherlands, the opposite idea has been taken—as decriminalization of cannabis has been used as a tactic to separate 'soft' and 'hard' drug markets) Furthermore, in the case of cannabis decriminalization the sale of the drug would still be illegal, and revenue from it would still go into the pockets of criminals instead of the government's treasury (although in the Netherlands for instance, shops selling marijuana still pay income taxes on the product—despite marijuana being technically illegal).