Why Drugs Should Not Be Legal and Why They Should

Health

One common reason given for the prohibition of drug use is a concern for the health of those using drugs. Possible detrimental effects range from altered awareness and reduced motor control to allergic reactions, poisoning and death by overdose. There are also wider effects known to impact health such as impaired educational performance, lower standard-of-living and increased incidence of depression. Many illegal drugs have been proven more dangerous than other unhealthy substances, though there is a debate on the comparative health dangers of licit drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco) and illegal drugs.

Certainly, there are myriad proven links between health problems and drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents) physical addiction and substance cravings; overdoses and poisonings; diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis. Among other reasons, many illegal drugs were once legal until their health problems and addictive properties were realized.

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.g. in clubbing or party settings), drug-induced intoxication 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; prevention campaigns; harm reduction programmes; addiction treatment; public nuisance and third party damage; absence from work and lost productivity; crime committed by drug users while “under the influence”.

In the case of licit psychoactive substances (e.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. 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 $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.

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.