Some people argue that all recreational drugs should be legalized and regulated. All of them. Not just just cannabis, but every single one of them, including cocaine, heroine... the whole bunch.
The argument goes that the situation with drugs is like with alcohol: When alcohol was prohibited in many countries, it caused an explosion of crime and violence because of all the illegal production and trafficking of alcohol. When alcohol was once again legalized and regulated, most of that crime disappeared (being pretty much restricted to the few moonshiners, who seldom commit any more serious crimes, as well as people trying to evade taxes by bringing alcohol surreptitiously from outside the the country.)
The same situation, says the argument, would happen with drugs: If all of them were legalized, and could just be purchased from shops, like alcohol is, all that crime would go away. No illicit production, no drug trafficking, no violent criminal drug cartels... As an additional bonus, it would be another source of tax income for the government (just like alcohol is).
While the legalization of cannabis has been tried in some countries, I'm not aware of any that has tried legalizing all drugs, to see if it works. However, I think there is one place that comes very close to this, and might be a good indication of what would happen if hard drugs were legalized: California. And more particularly, San Francisco.
Being the social justice heaven that California has become, it's unsurprising that the state has really lax enforcement of anti-drug laws, and very permissive attitudes towards drug use. Drug use is, for all intents and purposes, de facto legal.
This is especially true in San Francisco. The city has been operating a so-called "needle exchange program" where governmental facilities are provided where anybody can get free needles, and bring in used needles. Not only that, but these facilities can be used to actually administer the drugs themselves, without restrictions, without judgment.
The idea is to try to minimize the number of diseases spread by used needles, and to have medical personnel on site in the case of overdose, thus helping those who would suffer such a thing.
Since drug trafficking is still technically speaking illegal in the state, this might not curb that type of crime, but certainly this kind of permissive program would help in other ways? Surely it curbs transmittable diseases and minimizes the number of deaths, and even the number of users, given that help is readily available?
Nope. San Francisco not only has one of the worst homelessness problems in the entire country, but also one of the worst drug use problems.
The estimated number of intravenous drug users in the city is in the several tens of thousands. Literally millions of needles are distributed every year, yet only a small fraction of them are ever brought back, the majority of them being just discarded on the streets. There is a hepatitis C epidemic among the drug users, among other transmittable diseases.
Streets, underground tunnels, metro stations... are full of homeless people, many of them open drug users. Many places are very unsafe for people to walk through, especially tourists. The city has been facing a huge sanitary crisis, spending tens of millions of dollars every year trying to clean up all the garbage, needles and human feces. People are literally defecating on the streets, in public, in full view. Streets are littered with filthy tents where homeless people live in absolutely horrible living conditions. There are, in fact, entire tent districts that look like from a third world country.
Would legalizing all drugs reduce crime? I don't know. Would it cause all sorts of other kinds of problems? If San Francisco is any indication, yes.
The argument goes that the situation with drugs is like with alcohol: When alcohol was prohibited in many countries, it caused an explosion of crime and violence because of all the illegal production and trafficking of alcohol. When alcohol was once again legalized and regulated, most of that crime disappeared (being pretty much restricted to the few moonshiners, who seldom commit any more serious crimes, as well as people trying to evade taxes by bringing alcohol surreptitiously from outside the the country.)
The same situation, says the argument, would happen with drugs: If all of them were legalized, and could just be purchased from shops, like alcohol is, all that crime would go away. No illicit production, no drug trafficking, no violent criminal drug cartels... As an additional bonus, it would be another source of tax income for the government (just like alcohol is).
While the legalization of cannabis has been tried in some countries, I'm not aware of any that has tried legalizing all drugs, to see if it works. However, I think there is one place that comes very close to this, and might be a good indication of what would happen if hard drugs were legalized: California. And more particularly, San Francisco.
Being the social justice heaven that California has become, it's unsurprising that the state has really lax enforcement of anti-drug laws, and very permissive attitudes towards drug use. Drug use is, for all intents and purposes, de facto legal.
This is especially true in San Francisco. The city has been operating a so-called "needle exchange program" where governmental facilities are provided where anybody can get free needles, and bring in used needles. Not only that, but these facilities can be used to actually administer the drugs themselves, without restrictions, without judgment.The idea is to try to minimize the number of diseases spread by used needles, and to have medical personnel on site in the case of overdose, thus helping those who would suffer such a thing.
Since drug trafficking is still technically speaking illegal in the state, this might not curb that type of crime, but certainly this kind of permissive program would help in other ways? Surely it curbs transmittable diseases and minimizes the number of deaths, and even the number of users, given that help is readily available?
Nope. San Francisco not only has one of the worst homelessness problems in the entire country, but also one of the worst drug use problems.The estimated number of intravenous drug users in the city is in the several tens of thousands. Literally millions of needles are distributed every year, yet only a small fraction of them are ever brought back, the majority of them being just discarded on the streets. There is a hepatitis C epidemic among the drug users, among other transmittable diseases.
Streets, underground tunnels, metro stations... are full of homeless people, many of them open drug users. Many places are very unsafe for people to walk through, especially tourists. The city has been facing a huge sanitary crisis, spending tens of millions of dollars every year trying to clean up all the garbage, needles and human feces. People are literally defecating on the streets, in public, in full view. Streets are littered with filthy tents where homeless people live in absolutely horrible living conditions. There are, in fact, entire tent districts that look like from a third world country.
Would legalizing all drugs reduce crime? I don't know. Would it cause all sorts of other kinds of problems? If San Francisco is any indication, yes.
Comments
Post a Comment