Argumento sobre la legalización de la marihuana

Arguments for and against drug prohibition

1

Arguments for and against drug prohibition
Arguments about the prohibition of drugs, and over drug policy reform, are subjects of considerable controversy. The following is a presentation of major drug policy arguments, including those for drug law enforcement on one side of the debate, and arguments for drug law reform the other.

EfficacyArguments that prohibitive drug laws are effective
Supporters of prohibition such as Drug Free Australia claim that prohibitive drug laws have a successful track record suppressing illicit drug use since they were introduced 100 years ago.[1] [2] The licit drug alcohol has current (last 12 months) user rates as high as 80-90% in populations over 14 years of age,[3] and tobacco has historically hadcurrent use rates up to 60% of adult populations,[4] yet the percentages currently using illicit drugs in OECD countries are generally below 1% of the population excepting cannabis where most are between 3% and 10%, with six countries between 11% and 17%.[5] In the 50 year period following the first 1912 international convention restricting use of opium, heroin and cocaine, the United States’ useof illicit drugs other than cannabis was consistently below 0.5% of the population, with cannabis rising to 1-2% of the population between 1955 and 1965.[6] With the advent of the counter-culture movement from the late 1950s, where illicit drug use was promoted as mind-expanding and relatively harmless,[7] illicit drug use rose sharply. With illicit drug use peaking in the 1970’s in the UnitedStates, the ‘Just Say No’ campaign, initiated under the patronage of Nancy Reagan, coincided with recent (past month) illicit drug use decreases from 14.1% in 1979 to 5.8% in 1992, a drop of 60%.[8] Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, has drawn attention to the drug policy of Sweden,[9] [10] arguing: Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use isjust a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average. For three decades,[11] Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power. There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The policetake drug crime seriously. Governments and societies must keep their nerve and avoid being swayed by misguided notions of tolerance. They must not lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are dangerous - that is why the world agreed to restrict them. —Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of UNODC (March 2007). "Cannabis... call it anything but "soft" [12] ", The Independent (UK).[13] In Europe,Sweden spends the second highest percentage of GDP, after the Netherlands, on drug control.[14] The UNODC argues that when Sweden reduced spending on education and rehabilitation in the 1990s in a context of higher youth unemployment and declining GDP growth, illicit drug use rose[15] but restoring expenditure from 2002 again sharply decreased drug use as student surveys indicate.[16] In 1998, apoll run by SIFO of 1,000 Swedes found that 96% wanted stronger action by government to stop drug abuse, and 95% wanted drug use to remain illegal.[17]
[1]

In criticism of governments that have relaxed their drug laws, Antonio Maria Costa, speaking in Washington before the launch of the World Drug Report in June 2006, said: After so many years of drug control experience, we now know that acoherent, long-term strategy can reduce drug supply, demand and trafficking. If this does not happen, it will be because some nations fail to take the drug issue sufficiently seriously and pursue inadequate policies. Many countries have the drug problem they deserve.

Arguments for and against drug prohibition

2

Arguments that prohibitive drug laws are ineffective
Stephen Rolles, writing...