Drug relegalization

Drug liberalization is the process of eliminating or reducing drug prohibition laws. Variations of drug liberalization (also spelled liberalisation) include drug relegalization, drug legalization, and drug decriminalization.[1] The reasons given for this include the failure of the current war on drugs policies, the revenue to be raised from taxing drugs, the right of adults to live their life without interference from the government and the reduction in crime it is claimed will come with liberalization.[2]

Policies

The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances made it mandatory for the signatory countries to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law” (art. 3, §1) all the activities related to the production, sale, transport, distribution, etc. of the substances included in the most restricted lists of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Criminalization also applies to the “cultivation of opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis plants for the purpose of the production of narcotic drugs”. The Convention distinguishes between the intent to traffic and personal consumption, stating that the latter should also be considered a criminal offence, but “subject to the constitutional principles and the basic concepts of [the state’s] legal system” (art. 3, §2).[3]

As a result the prison population throughout most of the world exploded, partly due to the tightening of anti-drug laws, under the influence of the 1988 Convention. The subsequent prison crisis and lack of positive impact on drug use prompted various depenalisation and decriminalization reforms. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) defines decriminalization as the removal of a conduct or activity from the sphere of criminal law; depenalisation signifying merely a relaxation of the penal sanction exacted by law. Decriminalization usually applies to offences related to drug consumption and may include either the imposition of sanctions of a different kind (administrative) or the abolition of all sanctions; other (noncriminal) laws then regulate the conduct or activity that has been decriminalized. Depenalisation usually consists of personal consumption as well as small-scale trading and generally signifies the elimination or reduction of custodial penalties, while the conduct or activity still remains a criminal offence. The term legalization refers to the removal of all drug-related offences from criminal law: use, possession, cultivation, production, trading, etc.[3][4]

Drug liberalization proponents hold differing reasons to support liberalization, and have differing policy proposals. The two most common positions are drug relegalization (or legalization), and drug decriminalization.

Drug re-legalization

Drug re-legalization calls for the end of government-enforced prohibition on the distribution or sale and personal use of specified (or all) currently banned drugs. Proposed ideas range from full legalization which would completely remove all forms of government control, to various forms of regulated legalization, where drugs would be legally available, but under a system of government control which might mean for instance:[5]

  • mandated labels with dosage and medical warnings,
  • restrictions on advertising,
  • age limitations,
  • restrictions on amount purchased at one time,
  • requirements on the form in which certain drugs would be supplied,
  • ban on sale to intoxicated persons,
  • special user licenses to purchase particular drugs.

The regulated legalization system would probably have a range of restrictions for different drugs, depending on their perceived risk, so while some drugs would be sold over the counter in pharmacies or other licensed establishments, drugs with greater risks of harm might only be available for sale on licensed premises where use could be monitored and emergency medical care made available. Examples of drugs with different levels of regulated distribution in most countries include: caffeine (coffee, tea), nicotine (tobacco),[6] ethyl alcohol (beer, wine, spirits), and antibiotics.

Full legalization is often proposed by groups such as libertarians who object to drug laws on moral grounds, while regulated legalization is suggested by groups such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who object to the drug laws on the grounds that they fail to achieve their stated aims and instead greatly worsen the problems associated with use of prohibited drugs, but who acknowledge that there are harms associated with currently prohibited drugs which need to be minimized. Not all proponents of drug re-legalization necessarily share a common ethical framework, and people may adopt this viewpoint for a variety of reasons. In particular, favoring drug re-legalization does not imply approval of drug use.[7]

Portugal abolished all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. When it was passed, critics said it would open the country to drug tourists and make the drug problem worse. However, once the results were released from a report called

Drug decriminalization

Drug decriminalization calls for reduced control and penalties compared to existing laws. Proponents of drug decriminalization generally support the use of fines or other punishments to replace prison terms, and often propose systems whereby illegal drug users who are caught would be fined, but would not receive a permanent criminal record as a result. A central feature of drug decriminalization is the concept of harm reduction.

Drug decriminalization is in some ways an intermediate between prohibition and legalization, and has been criticized as being "the worst of both worlds", in that drug sales would still be illegal, thus perpetuating the problems associated with leaving production and distribution of drugs to the criminal underworld, while also failing to discourage illegal drug use by removing the criminal penalties that might otherwise cause some people to choose not to use drugs. However, there are many that argue that the decriminalization of possession of drugs would redirect focus of the law enforcement system of any country to put more effort into arresting dealers and big time criminals, instead of arresting minor criminals for mere possession, and thus be more effective.

Portugal is the first country that has decriminalized the use of all drugs, to positive results.[12] Anyone caught with any type of drug in Portugal, if it is for personal consumption, will not be imprisoned. Spain and Italy have since followed Portugal's example.[13]

Economics

There are numerous economic and social impacts of the criminalization of drugs. Prohibition increases crime (theft, violence, corruption) and drug price and increases potency.[14] In many developing countries the production of drugs offers a way to escape poverty. Milton Friedman estimated that over 10,000 deaths a year in the US are caused by the criminalization of drugs, and if drugs were to be made legal innocent victims such as those shot down in drive by shootings, would cease or decrease. The economic inefficiency and ineffectiveness of such government intervention in preventing drug trade has been fiercely criticised by drug-liberty advocates. The War on Drugs of the United States, that provoked legislation within several other Western governments, has also garnered criticism for these reasons.

Prices and consumption

Much of the debate surrounding the economics of drug legalization centers on the shape of the demand curve for illegal drugs and the sensitivity of consumers to changes in the prices of illegal drugs.[15] Proponents of drug legalization often assume that the quantity of addictive drugs consumed is unresponsive to changes in price; however, studies into addictive, but legal, substances like alcohol and cigarettes, have shown that consumption can be quite responsive to changes in prices.[16] In the same study, economists Michael Grossman and Frank J. Chaloupka estimate about the price of cocaine have found that a 10% reduction in the price of cocaine would lead to a 14% increase in the frequency of cocaine use.[16]:459 This increase indicates that consumers are responsive to price changes in the cocaine market. There is also evidence that in the long run, consumers are much more responsive to price changes than in the short run,[16]:454 but other studies have led to a wide range of conclusions.[17]:2043

Considering that legalization would likely lead to an increase in the supply of drugs, the standard economic model predicts that the quantity of drugs consumed would rise and the prices would fall.[16]:428 However, Andrew E. Clark, an economist who has studied the effects of drug legalization, suggest that a specific tax, or sin tax, would counteract the increase in consumption.[15]:3

Associated costs

Proponents of drug prohibition argue that many negative externalities, or third party costs, are associated with the consumption of illegal drugs.[18]:183, [17]:2043 Externalities like violence, environmental effects on neighborhoods, increased health risks and, increased healthcare costs are often associated with the illegal drug market.[15]:3 Opponents of prohibition argue that many of those externalities are created by current drug policies. They believe that much of the violence associated with drug trade is due to the illegal nature of drug trade, where there is no mediating authority to solve disputes peacefully and legally.[15]:3 [18]:177 The illegal nature of the market also affects the health of consumers by making it difficult to acquire syringes, which often leads to needle sharing.[18]:180-181 Prominent economist Milton Friedman argues that prohibition of drugs creates many negative externalities like increased incarceration rates, the under treatment of chronic pain, corruption, disproportional imprisonment of African Americans, compounding harm to users, the destruction of inner cities and harm to foreign countries.[19] Proponents of legalization also argue that prohibition decrease the quality of the drugs made, which often leads to more physical harm, like accidental overdoses and poisoning, to the drug users.[18]:179 Steven D. Levitt and Ilyana Kuziemko point to the over crowding of prisons as another negative side effect of the war on drugs. They believe that by sending such a large number of drug offenders to prison, the war on drugs has reduced the prison space available for other offenders. This increased incarceration rate not only costs tax payers more to maintain, it could possibly increase crime by crowding violent offenders out of prison cells and replacing them with drug offenders.[17]:2043

Direct costs

A Harvard economist, Jeffery Miron, estimated that ending the war on drugs would inject 76.8 billion dollars into the US economy in 2010 alone.[20] He estimates that the government would save $41.3 billion for law enforcement and the government would gain up to $46.7 billion in tax revenue.[21] Since President Nixon began the war on drugs, the federal drug-fighting budget has increased from $100 million in 1970 to $15.1 billion in 2010, with a total cost estimated near 1 trillion dollars over 40 years.[22] In the same time period and estimated 37 million nonviolent drug offenders have been incarcerated. $121 billion was spent to arrest these offenders and $450 billion to incarcerate them.[22]

Size of the illegal drug market

Estimates about the size of the international drug market range from $300-$500 billion, making up approximately 8% of global trade.[23] The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimated that in 2010, the international drug market has a value of over $300 billion, making it larger than the gross national products of all but 21 nations.[24]

History

The cultivation, use and trade of psychoactive and other drugs has occurred since civilization's existence. In the 20th century, the United States government led a major renewed surge in drug prohibition called the "War on Drugs." It was only in the 20th Century that Britain and the United States outlawed cannabis. The British had gone to war with China in the 19th Century in what became known as the opium wars to protect their valuable trade in narcotics.

Motivations claimed by supporters of drug prohibition laws across various societies and eras have included religious observance, allegations of violence by racial minorities, and public health concerns. Those who are not proponents of anti-drug legislation characterize these motivations as religious intolerance, racism, and public healthism.

Various proponents of drug liberalization wish to repeal these laws for reasons ranging from individual rights-based defenses of liberty, to consequentialist arguments against the economic and social outcomes of drug prohibition. Starting in the 20th century, large organized movements to overturn existing drug laws formed around the world. The most vocal of these groups exist in liberal democracies, and typically attract liberal and libertarian supporters, although drug liberalization itself is a non-partisan issue and may be supported by adherents of any ideology.

The campaign against alcohol prohibition culminated in the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution repealing prohibition on December 5, 1933, as well as liberalization in Canada, and some but not all of the other countries that enforced prohibition. However, many laws controlling the use of alcohol continue to exist even in these countries.

Current proponents of drug liberalization seek the repeal or softening of drug prohibition laws, most commonly cannabis but also including other controlled substances such as alcohol, tobacco, opiates, stimulants, psychedelics, dissociatives, prescription drugs, and others.

Drug liberalization around the world

Europe

Czech Republic

On December 14, 2009, the Czech Republic adopted a new law that took effect on January 1, 2010, and allows a person to possess up to 15 grams of marijuana or 1.5 grams of heroin without facing criminal charges. These amounts are higher (often many times) than in any other European country, possibly making the Czech Republic the most liberal country in the European Union when it comes to drug liberalization, apart from Portugal.[25]

Under the law, possession of the following amounts or less of illicit drugs is a misdemeanor subject to a fine equal to a parking ticket:

Sale (not purchase) is still a criminal act. Possession of “larger than a small amount” of marijuana can result in a jail sentence of up to one year. For other illicit drugs, the sentence is two years. Trafficking as well as production (apart from growing up to five plants of marijuana) offenses carry stiffer sentences. The Czech Republic now joins Portugal as a European country that has decriminalized drug possession.

Netherlands

The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 2 principles:

  1. Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter
  2. A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists

Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine. Cannabis coffee shops are also illegal according to the statutes.[26]

However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.

Norway

On June 14, 2010, the Stoltenberg commission recommended implementing heroin assisted treatment and expanding harm reduction measures.[27] On 18 June 2010, Knut Storberget, Minister of Justice and the Police announced that the ministry was working on new drug policy involving decriminalization by the Portugal model, which was to be introduced to parliament before the next general election.[28] Later, however, Storberget changed his statements, saying the decriminalization debate is "for academics", instead calling for coerced treatment.[29] In early March, 2013, minister of health and care services Jonas Gahr Støre proposed to decriminalize the inhalation of heroin by 2014 as a measure to decrease drug overdoses.[30] In 2011 there were 294 fatal overdoses, in comparison only 170 traffic related deaths.[30]

Portugal

In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalisation, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled.[31] However, Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics, but conceded that "decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise."[32]

Latin America

Main article: Latin American drug legalization

In the late 2000s and early 2010s advocacy for drug legalization has increaced in Latin America. Spearheading the movement Uruguayan government announced in 2012 plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes. Some countries in this region have already advanced towards depenalization of personal consumption.

Argentina

In August 2009, the Argentine supreme court declared in a landmark ruling that it was unconstitutional to prosecute citizens for having drugs for their personal use - "adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state".[33] The decision affected the second paragraph of Article 14 of the country’s drug control legislation (Law Number 23,737) that punishes the possession of drugs for personal consumption with prison sentences ranging from one month to two years (although education or treatment measures can be substitute penalties). The unconstitutionality of the article concerns cases of drug possession for personal consumption that does not affect others.[34][35]

Brazil

In 2002 and 2006 the country went through legislative changes, resulting in a partial decriminalization of possession for personal use. Prison sentences no longer applied and were replaced by educational measures and community services.[36] However, the 2006 law does not provide objective means to distinguish between users or traffickers. A disparity exists between the decriminalization of drug use and the increased penalization of selling drugs, punishable with a maximum prison sentences of 5 years for the sale of very minor quantities of drugs. Most of those incarcerated for drug trafficking are offenders caught selling small quantities of drugs, among them drug users who sell drugs to finance their drug habits.[37]

Colombia

Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos proposed the legalisation of drugs in an effort to counter the failure of the War on Drugs, which was said to have yielded poor results at a huge cost.[38]

Costa Rica

Costa Rica has decriminalized drugs for personal consumption. Manufacturing or selling drugs is still a jailable offense.

Ecuador

According to the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador in its Article 364 the Ecuadorian state does not see drug consumption as a crime but only as a health concern.[39] Since June 2013 the State drugs regulatory office CONSEP has published a table which establishes maximum quantities carried by persons so as to be considered in legal possession and that person as not a seller of drugs.[39][40][41] The "CONSEP established, at their latest general meeting, that the following quantities be considered the maximum consumer amounts: 10 grams of marijuana or hash, 4 grams of opiates, 100 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of cocaine, 0.020 milligrams of LSD, and 80 milligrams of methamphetamine or MDMA".[42]

Honduras

On February 22, 2008 Honduras President Manuel Zelaya called on the United States to legalize drugs, in order, he said, to prevent the majority of violent murders occurring in Honduras. Honduras is used by cocaine smugglers as a transiting point between Colombia and the US. Honduras, with a population of 7 million suffers an average of 8–10 murders a day, with an estimated 70% being as a result of this international drug trade. The same problem is occurring in Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Mexico, according to Zelaya.[43]

Mexico

In April 2009, the Mexican Congress approved changes in the General Health Law that decriminalized the possession of illegal drugs for immediate consumption and personal use, allowing a person to possess up to 5g of marijuana or 500 mg of cocaine. The only restriction is that people in possession of drugs should not be within a 300 meter radius of schools, police departments, or correctional facilities. Opium, heroin, LSD, and other synthetic drugs were also decriminalized, it will not be considered as a crime as long as the dose does not exceed the limit established in the General Health Law.[44] Many question this, as cocaine is as much synthesised as heroin, both are produced as extracts from plants. The law establishes very low amount thresholds and strictly defines personal dosage. For those arrested with more than the threshold allowed by the law this can result in heavy prison sentences, as they will be assumed to be small traffickers even if there are no other indications that the amount was meant for selling.[45]

Uruguay

Main article: Legality of cannabis in Uruguay

Uruguay is one of the few countries that never criminalized the possession of drugs for personal use. Since 1974, the law establishes no quantity limits, leaving it to the judge’s discretion to determine whether the intent was personal use. Once it is determined by the judge that the amount in possession was meant for personal use, there are no sanctions.[46]

In June 2012, the Uruguayan government announced plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes. The government also stated that they will ask global leaders to do the same.[47]

On July 31, 2013, the Uruguayan House of Representatives approved a bill to legalize the production, distribution, sale, and consumption of marijuana by a vote of 50 to 46. The bill heads next to the Senate, where the left-leaning majority coalition, the Broad Front, holds a comfortable majority and is expected to pass the bill. The bill will then be presented to President José Mujica, also of the Broad Front coalition, who has supported legalization since June 2012. Relating this vote to the 2012 legalization of marijuana by the U.S. states Colorado and Washington, John Walsh, drug policy expert of the Washington Office on Latin America, stated that "Uruguay's timing is right. Because of last year’s Colorado and Washington State votes to legalize, the U.S. government is in no position to browbeat Uruguay or others who may follow.”[48]

North America

Canada

The cultivation of cannabis is currently illegal in Canada, with exceptions only for medical usage. However, the use of cannabis by the general public is tolerated to a certain degree and varies depending on location and jurisdiction,[49] and a vigorous campaign to legalize cannabis is underway nation-wide. The sale of marijuana seeds remains legal.

In 2001, the Globe and Mail reported that a poll found that 47% of Canadians agreed with the statement, "The use of marijuana should be legalized" in 2000, compared to 26% in 1975.[50] A more recent poll found that more than half of Canadians supported legalization. However, in 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government tabled Bill C-26 to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to bring forth a more restrictive law with higher minimum penalties for drug crimes.[51][52] Bill-26 died in committee after the dissolution of the 39th Canadian Parliament in September 2008, but the Bill has subsequently been resurrected by the Canadian government twice.[53][54]

United States

Throughout the United States, various people and groups have been pushing for the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons. Organizations such as NORML and the Marijuana Policy Project work to decriminalize possession, use, cultivation, and sale of marijuana by adults, even beyond medical uses.[55] In 1996, 56% of California voters voted for California Proposition 215, legalizing the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This created significant legal and policy tensions between federal and state governments. Since then, 17 more states have legalized and regulated medical marijuana. State laws in conflict with federal law about cannabis remain valid, and prevent state level prosecution, despite cannabis being illegal under federal law (see Gonzales v. Raich). On November 6th, 2012, Colorado and Washington state legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for private recreational use, and created a process for writing rules for legal growing and commercial distribution of marijuana within each state. [56]

Oceania

Australia

Australia has one of the highest percentages of marijuana smokers in the world.[57] Australians have been advocating for the legalization of cannabis since the early 1970s with the Cannabis Research Foundation of Australia in Victoria. Other active groups in the later 70s included the Australian Marijuana Party and the Marijuana Petition Organisation. During the 1980s, an independent Australian chapter of NORML was established and became the main force in the Cannabis Campaign until the early 1990s. In 199?, HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition) was established and continued the fight for law reform. In 2010, HEMP qualified as a political party and will be fielding candidates in elections where possible.

In 2011, the Cannabis Campaign seemed to experience a renaissance in Australia, no doubt due to developments worldwide, with many new groups appearing in different states, using social media as a conduit and forum. Since 1985, the Federal Government has run a declared "War on Drugs" and while initially Australia led the world in 'harm-minimisation' approach, they have since lagged. In 2012, the think tank Australia 21, released a report on the decriminalization of drugs in Australia.[58]

Political parties

Many political parties support liberalizing drug control laws, from liberal parties to far left movements.

In 2011, the Liberal Democrats in the UK adopted a policy of moving towards the Portugal model of decriminalisation and advocating treatment rather than prosecution. The Green Party also support the legalisation of cannabis. Alan Duncan is also a Conservative MP well known for his advocacy of a free market for drugs.

There are also numerous single issue marijuana parties devoted to campaign for the legalisation of cannabis exclusively.

See also

References

External links

  • Transform Drug Policy Foundation - A UK-based think-tank that works to develop systems for control and regulation that can be applied globally.
  • Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Run by retired law enforcement professionals who oppose prohibition.
  • Voluntary Committee of Lawyers - a New York based network of judges and lawyers opposed to current federal drug laws.
  • NORML (US National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) - a US wide network of activists seeking to liberalize cannabis legislation.
  • Re:Vision Drug Policy Network - an organisation for young people aged 16–25 campaigning against prohibition.
  • The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs - 1972 - The LeDain Commission Report
  • Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
  • Draft Plan for Legalization from LIFE - an example of a policy formulation proposed for substance legalization
  • Count The Costs
fi:Huumeiden dekriminalisointi
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.