legalizing drugs essay

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Drugs — Legalization Of Drugs

Legalization of Drugs

Categories: Drugs

About this sample

Words: 620 |

Published: Mar 19, 2024

Words: 620 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Historical context, empirical evidence, ethical implications.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 656 words

2 pages / 1347 words

2 pages / 1088 words

1 pages / 435 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Drugs

Substance abuse is a major public health issue that affects millions of people worldwide. It refers to the harmful or hazardous use of psychoactive substances, including alcohol and illicit drugs. Substance abuse can have [...]

Drugs have been a part of human society for thousands of years, and their impact on individuals and society as a whole is a topic of great concern. The use and abuse of drugs can have a wide range of effects on society, [...]

Drug abuse has been a prevalent issue in society for many years, with cocaine being one of the most widely abused substances. Cocaine is a powerful stimulant drug that is derived from the coca plant and has both pros and cons [...]

In the past few years, there has been a major increase of buying and using drugs. Drugs can be used as a stress reliever, a way to escape from reality, and a few other uses. There are some major costs that affect the person as [...]

A drug is a natural or synthetic substance which when taken into a living body affects the normal functioning or structure and it is used in the diagnosis, mitigation, treatment or prevention of a disease. Drug misuse is using a [...]

When many people hear this question, they think that it means to make them available to everyone. That is not the case. I believe that through limited legalizations of illegal drugs, medicinal marijuana can be used to its [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Drug Legalization?: Time for a real debate

Subscribe to governance weekly, paul stares ps paul stares.

March 1, 1996

11 min read

Whether Bill Clinton “inhaled” when trying marijuana as a college student was about the closest the last presidential campaign came to addressing the drug issue. The present one, however, could be very different. For the fourth straight year, a federally supported nationwide survey of American secondary school students by the University of Michigan has indicated increased drug use. After a decade or more in which drug use had been falling, the Republicans will assuredly blame the bad news on President Clinton and assail him for failing to carry on the Bush and Reagan administrations’ high-profile stand against drugs. How big this issue becomes is less certain, but if the worrisome trend in drug use among teens continues, public debate about how best to respond to the drug problem will clearly not end with the election. Indeed, concern is already mounting that the large wave of teenagers—the group most at risk of taking drugs—that will crest around the turn of the century will be accompanied by a new surge in drug use.

As in the past, some observers will doubtless see the solution in much tougher penalties to deter both suppliers and consumers of illicit psychoactive substances. Others will argue that the answer lies not in more law enforcement and stiffer sanctions, but in less. Specifically, they will maintain that the edifice of domestic laws and international conventions that collectively prohibit the production, sale, and consumption of a large array of drugs for anything other than medical or scientific purposes has proven physically harmful, socially divisive, prohibitively expensive, and ultimately counterproductive in generating the very incentives that perpetuate a violent black market for illicit drugs. They will conclude, moreover, that the only logical step for the United States to take is to “legalize” drugs—in essence repeal and disband the current drug laws and enforcement mechanisms in much the same way America abandoned its brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

Although the legalization alternative typically surfaces when the public’s anxiety about drugs and despair over existing policies are at their highest, it never seems to slip off the media radar screen for long. Periodic incidents—such as the heroin-induced death of a young, affluent New York City couple in 1995 or the 1993 remark by then Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders that legalization might be beneficial and should be studied—ensure this. The prominence of many of those who have at various times made the case for legalization—such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, and George Shultz—also helps. But each time the issue of legalization arises, the same arguments for and against are dusted off and trotted out, leaving us with no clearer understanding of what it might entail and what the effect might be.

As will become clear, drug legalization is not a public policy option that lends itself to simplistic or superficial debate. It requires dissection and scrutiny of an order that has been remarkably absent despite the attention it perennially receives. Beyond discussion of some very generally defined proposals, there has been no detailed assessment of the operational meaning of legalization. There is not even a commonly accepted lexicon of terms to allow an intellectually rigorous exchange to take place. Legalization, as a consequence, has come to mean different things to different people. Some, for example, use legalization interchangeably with “decriminalization,” which usually refers to removing criminal sanctions for possessing small quantities of drugs for personal use. Others equate legalization, at least implicitly, with complete deregulation, failing in the process to acknowledge the extent to which currently legally available drugs are subject to stringent controls.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government—including the Clinton administration—has done little to improve the debate. Although it has consistently rejected any retreat from prohibition, its stance has evidently not been based on in- depth investigation of the potential costs and benefits. The belief that legalization would lead to an instant and dramatic increase in drug use is considered to be so self-evident as to warrant no further study. But if this is indeed the likely conclusion of any study, what is there to fear aside from criticism that relatively small amounts of taxpayer money had been wasted in demonstrating what everyone had believed at the outset? Wouldn’t such an outcome in any case help justify the continuation of existing policies and convincingly silence those—admittedly never more than a small minority—calling for legalization?

A real debate that acknowledges the unavoidable complexities and uncertainties surrounding the notion of drug legalization is long overdue. Not only would it dissuade people from making the kinds of casual if not flippant assertions—both for and against—that have permeated previous debates about legalization, but it could also stimulate a larger and equally critical assessment of current U.S. drug control programs and priorities.

First Ask the Right Questions

Many arguments appear to make legalization a compelling alternative to today’s prohibitionist policies. Besides undermining the black-market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could remove or at least significantly reduce the very problems that cause the greatest public concern: the crime, corruption, and violence that attend the operation of illicit drug markets. It would presumably also diminish the damage caused by the absence of quality controls on illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle sharing and other unhygienic practices. Furthermore, governments could abandon the costly and largely futile effort to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and jail drug offenders, spending the money thus saved to educate people not to take drugs and treat those who become addicted.

However, what is typically portrayed as a fairly straightforward process of lifting prohibitionist controls to reap these putative benefits would in reality entail addressing an extremely complex set of regulatory issues. As with most if not all privately and publicly provided goods, the key regulatory questions concern the nature of the legally available drugs, the terms of their supply, and the terms of their consumption (see page 21).

What becomes immediately apparent from even a casual review of these questions—and the list presented here is by no means exhaustive—is that there is an enormous range of regulatory permutations for each drug. Until all the principal alternatives are clearly laid out in reasonable detail, however, the potential costs and benefits of each cannot begin to be responsibly assessed. This fundamental point can be illustrated with respect to the two central questions most likely to sway public opinion. What would happen to drug consumption under more permissive regulatory regimes? And what would happen to crime?

Relaxing the availability of psychoactive substances not already commercially available, opponents typically argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial rise in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin, and cocaine addiction in various countries before international controls took effect, the rise in alcohol consumption after the Volstead Act was repealed in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among medical professionals with greater access to prescription drugs. Without explaining the basis of their calculations, some have predicted dramatic increases in the number of people taking drugs and becoming addicted. These increases would translate into considerable direct and indirect costs to society, including higher public health spending as a result of drug overdoses, fetal deformities, and other drug-related misadventures such as auto accidents; loss of productivity due to worker absenteeism and on-the-job accidents; and more drug-induced violence, child abuse, and other crimes, to say nothing about educational impairment.

Advocates of legalization concede that consumption would probably rise, but counter that it is not axiomatic that the increase would be very large or last very long, especially if legalization were paired with appropriate public education programs. They too cite historical evidence to bolster their claims, noting that consumption of opium, heroin, and cocaine had already begun falling before prohibition took effect, that alcohol consumption did not rise suddenly after prohibition was lifted, and that decriminalization of cannabis use in 11 U.S. states in the 1970s did not precipitate a dramatic rise in its consumption. Some also point to the legal sale of cannabis products through regulated outlets in the Netherlands, which also does not seem to have significantly boosted use by Dutch nationals. Public opinion polls showing that most Americans would not rush off to try hitherto forbidden drugs that suddenly became available are likewise used to buttress the pro-legalization case.

Neither side’s arguments are particularly reassuring. The historical evidence is ambiguous at best, even assuming that the experience of one era is relevant to another. Extrapolating the results of policy steps in one country to another with different sociocultural values runs into the same problem. Similarly, within the United States the effect of decriminalization at the state level must be viewed within the general context of continued federal prohibition. And opinion polls are known to be unreliable.

More to the point, until the nature of the putative regulatory regime is specified, such discussions are futile. It would be surprising, for example, if consumption of the legalized drugs did not increase if they were to become commercially available the way that alcohol and tobacco products are today, complete with sophisticated packaging, marketing, and advertising. But more restrictive regimes might see quite different outcomes. In any case, the risk of higher drug consumption might be acceptable if legalization could reduce dramatically if not remove entirely the crime associated with the black market for illicit drugs while also making some forms of drug use safer. Here again, there are disputed claims.

Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activity and its associated problems would disappear or even fall very much. But, as before, addressing this question requires knowing the specifics of the regulatory regime, especially the terms of supply. If drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, opportunities for illicit undercutting would appear to be rather small. Under a more restrictive regime, such as government-controlled outlets or medical prescription schemes, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to remain or evolve to satisfy the legally unfulfilled demand. In short, the desire to control access to stem consumption has to be balanced against the black market opportunities that would arise. Schemes that risk a continuing black market require more questions—about the new black markets operation over time, whether it is likely to be more benign than existing ones, and more broadly whether the trade-off with other benefits still makes the effort worthwhile.

The most obvious case is regulating access to drugs by adolescents and young adults. Under any regime, it is hard to imagine that drugs that are now prohibited would become more readily available than alcohol and tobacco are today. Would a black market in drugs for teenagers emerge, or would the regulatory regime be as leaky as the present one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to either question would lessen the attractiveness of legalization.

What about the International Repercussions?

Not surprisingly, the wider international ramifications of drug legalization have also gone largely unremarked. Here too a long set of questions remains to be addressed. Given the longstanding U.S. role as the principal sponsor of international drug control measures, how would a decision to move toward legalizing drugs affect other countries? What would become of the extensive regime of multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements? Would every nation have to conform to a new set of rules? If not, what would happen? Would more permissive countries be suddenly swamped by drugs and drug consumers, or would traffickers focus on the countries where tighter restrictions kept profits higher? This is not an abstract question. The Netherlands’ liberal drug policy has attracted an influx of “drug tourists” from neighboring countries, as did the city of Zurich’s following the now abandoned experiment allowing an open drug market to operate in what became known as “Needle Park.” And while it is conceivable that affluent countries could soften the worst consequences of drug legalization through extensive public prevention and drug treatment programs, what about poorer countries?

Finally, what would happen to the principal suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all of the main markets? Would the trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illicit enterprises? What would happen to the source countries? Would they benefit or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly spring up elsewhere? Such questions have not even been posed in a systematic way, let alone seriously studied.

Irreducible Uncertainties

Although greater precision in defining more permissive regulatory regimes is critical to evaluating their potential costs and benefits, it will not resolve the uncertainties that exist. Only implementation will do that. Because small-scale experimentation (assuming a particular locality’s consent to be a guinea pig) would inevitably invite complaints that the results were biased or inconclusive, implementation would presumably have to be widespread, even global, in nature.

Yet jettisoning nearly a century of prohibition when the putative benefits remain so uncertain and the potential costs are so high would require a herculean leap of faith. Only an extremely severe and widespread deterioration of the current drug situation, nationally and internationally—is likely to produce the consensus—again, nationally and internationally that could impel such a leap. Even then the legislative challenge would be stupendous. The debate over how to set the conditions for controlling access to each of a dozen popular drugs could consume the legislatures of the major industrial countries for years.

None of this should deter further analysis of drug legalization. In particular, a rigorous assessment of a range of hypothetical regulatory regimes according to a common set of variables would clarify their potential costs, benefits, and trade- offs. Besides instilling much-needed rigor into any further discussion of the legalization alternative, such analysis could encourage the same level of scrutiny of current drug control programs and policies. With the situation apparently deteriorating in the United States as well as abroad, there is no better time for a fundamental reassessment of whether our existing responses to this problem are sufficient to meet the likely challenges ahead.

Governance Studies

Vanda Felbab-Brown

April 16, 2024

March 21, 2024

William A. Galston

March 8, 2024

Share full article

The World’s View on Drugs Is Changing. Which Side Are You On?

Should we decriminalize drugs, or legalize.

Today on “The Argument,” is it time to legalize all drugs?

Last November, an overwhelming majority of Oregonians voted to decriminalize most drugs via referendum. Medical marijuana is now legal in Alabama. And in a matter of months, cannabis products could be available to those who qualify.

Truth of the matter is, there’s not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug. And I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally.

President Biden may not be ready for legalized, recreational marijuana, but many states are way ahead of him. Connecticut just became the 18th state to legalize recreational marijuana. And it’s not just weed. Several cities have recently decriminalized magic mushrooms, and Oregon just decriminalized possession of small amounts of all drugs, including heroin, methamphetamines, and cocaine. It seems like the War on Drugs is over and drugs won big. I’m Jane Coaston, and there seems to be more and more consensus that jailing our way out of the addiction crisis in the United States is not working. But even hardcore drug policy reformers have vastly different takes on how we get to a better place with drugs, like our guests today. Ismail Ali is the Policy and Advocacy Director at the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, and Jonathan P. Caulkins is the H. Guyford Stever University Professor of Operations, Research, and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. I started out by asking Ismail to define the difference between drug decriminalization and legalization.

So when people think of decriminalization, they’re usually thinking of the reduction or elimination of criminal penalties, sometimes including civil penalties. And legalization tends to be when the law actually is fully recognizing, regulating activity from point A to point Z. So you can decriminalize, for example, personal use and possession. But if every behavior up to that point is still illegal, you have an island of maybe legal or decriminalized behavior in a sea of illegal behavior. So they get through all this illegal behavior to get to the legal behavior. And I think legalization implies a full spectrum, regulated approach to the whole piece.

Ismail, you do think that ultimately the goal would be to legalize all drugs. Why?

I do think that legal, regulated access is likely the best environment for a number of drugs, but I think it’s going to depend very much on the substance itself, and factors that have to do with the supply and demand questions with respect to where and how it’s produced. Not having a legally regulated system puts us in a position where the very, very large and lucrative drug trade, which exists, whether or not there’s a regulated industry, entirely is captured by underground actors with various levels of ethics and morals. And I think that that whole conversation around legal access must also look at — and has looked at, historically — the uptake of all substances in illegal markets, and then the effects of those behaviors. My mother’s family is Colombian, and they left Colombia in the 1980s as a result in part of the massive increase in cocaine violence and cartel use. And that continued underground. Engagement has not really ceased — not just with cocaine, but with a number of other drugs. And even Colombia now is having a very serious conversation at the governmental level about what it would look like to legally regulate cocaine, because — despite pressure from the U.S. and other actors, they have realized that, actually, having some sort of legally regulated system could be the way to reduce the violence in the country. So while I do think that legalizing drugs, which sounds like such a scary thing to a lot of people, really means bringing them under more regulatory control. It’s hard, I think, to really think through what an effective addiction response strategy at the social level would be while we’re under an environment of prohibition, because prohibition does exacerbate some of those secondary effects of drugs, like, for example, addiction independence.

I’m curious as to your thoughts, Jonathan, on decriminalization versus legalization.

These have to be decided drug by drug. Drugs are different. For a long time, we’ve had caffeine be legal. That was probably fine. I don’t think that it’s — one should be cavalier about other substances. Opioids make the point. The prescription opioid crisis was a crisis that killed tens of thousands of people every year for a drug that was highly regulated, much more so than the typical recreational drug. Opioids are intrinsically dangerous, much more so than caffeine or cannabis. It has to be decided on a case by case basis.

I think that that’s something that’s also important to note here, is that, for instance, in Oregon — Oregon just passed Measure 110, which makes possession of small amounts of LSD, methamphetamines, cocaine, and heroin punishable by a civil citation. That is not legalization. That is decriminalization. So I’m interested, Jonathan, can you talk about — when we’re talking about decriminalization, it sounds to me that it is still a civil penalty in Oregon to possess these — crimes. It’s like a traffic ticket, but that’s still a crime-ish.

Yeah, with the ish. The other thing it’s important to say is that, usually, when people talk decriminalization, they’re talking about decriminalizing or changing the consequences for people possessing amounts suitable for personal use. Whereas if you just say legalize, without any qualification, the presumption is you’re legalizing supply. So there is a big difference there. And sometimes it helps to keep them straight by remembering a third term, which is legalizing use. So decriminalization is usually reducing penalties for use so that you don’t have people getting a criminal record for use. Then you can go a step farther, as Ismail was saying, and legalize use, meaning you don’t even get the equivalent of a fine or a traffic ticket. Both of those are very different than legalizing supply.

Jonathan, you made a really fascinating argument in a piece called “The Drug Policy Roulette,” and I’d like you to explain more about this, because it actually was counterintuitive for me, which is — my view was that legalizing drugs would do what the end of Prohibition did for alcohol, which is when you aren’t legally allowed to drink, you can drink all the time. But with the end of Prohibition and with a regulated alcohol market, you have places — you have counties that are dry. You have a liquor store that can only be open from this time to this time. There are prohibitions on drunk driving, and societal prohibitions against when you can — like, drinking in the morning, drinking by yourself, this is looked down on. And I think societal prohibitions play into how we think about using drugs and alcohol anyway. But in the case of drugs, you made the point in this piece that one of the issues that would be unexpected from this is that prohibition makes drugs expensive, and that drugs like heroin and cocaine would actually be pretty cheap to obtain if they were legalized, because a part of what makes them expensive is what’s called compensating wage differentials. Namely, it’s really hard to bring cocaine into the United States. You are paying for the cost of how hard it is to bring cocaine into the United States. But with that price collapse, the taxes required to make it so that you weren’t just having cheap cocaine everywhere would be incredibly high, which would then contribute to the kind of gray market smuggling that we see with cigarette smuggling in the United States and in other countries. This is a financial issue I had never thought about.

Sure. The first point is that prohibition prevents one from producing these things in straightforward ways. None of the drugs are hard to produce. If it was legal and you could allow a regular company to do it, then they become very cheap. You can see that, for instance, just in the price of cocaine in Colombia is about 1 percent or 2 percent what it is in the streets in the United States. And the illegal distribution system effectively charges $15,000 to move a kilogram from Bogota to New York City that would cost $70 on FedEx. So prohibition makes things far more expensive than it would be if they were legal. As a practical matter, there’s no way that we will have taxes high enough to prevent prices from declining substantially. And that is in part because there probably wouldn’t be the political will, but also in part because of practicalities. Drugs are very potent in the sense that it doesn’t take very much material. A daily cannabis user using one and a half grams a day consumes only a little more than a pound over a year, about the same weight as one 20 ounce can of beer. So we just can’t effectively collect very high taxes on these easy to smuggle commodities.

Yeah, and many people have talked now for some years about this concept, the Iron Law of Prohibition, which maybe it would be good to bring in here, which is essentially the idea that because smuggling is such a lucrative activity, and because smuggling smaller things, more concentrated substances is easier, it actually incentivizes higher concentrations of substances to be taken across borders. So for example, if you want to take enough heroin for 500 people, you need a trunk of a car. If you want to take enough fentanyl for 500 people, you need something about the size of your phone or maybe much, much, much smaller. So there might be the case where as smuggling gets more difficult, it’s actually incentivizing higher concentrations of drugs, because it’s easier to smuggle those drugs as opposed to ones that take up more physical space.

Well, we should unpack this, though. I mean, the movement from heroin to fentanyl is not a response to a change in the legal status of either substance. But the Iron Law of Prohibition has been completely refuted by the experience with cannabis legalization. It’s the iron law that holds no water. Cannabis did not exceed average potency of 5 percent until 2000, and now it’s — typical flower potency in a legal stores is over 20 percent. And we now have common use of vapes and dabs, which are much more potent than that. So the Iron Law of Prohibition has just been disproved by experience with cannabis legalization.

I’d probably push back on that a bit, because cannabis is also produced in state. We’re not talking as much about taking things across borders, but the big difference is that with a lot of cannabis products, they’re being produced at the place or near the place they’re being used, which is different from things that are crossing international borders.

The weight of drugs doesn’t matter much at all after they are legal, because the weight is so small. Again, I make reference this —

Yeah, no. I agree after they are legal, for sure.

So it doesn’t matter that at the moment we’re in this weird situation where we have a bunch of state specific markets. That’s a temporary artifact of the fact that there’s not yet national legalization. Once there’s national legalization, we can no longer have these state specific markets because of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

Jonathan, you brought up the opioid crisis. And I think that there have been a host of people who’ve written on how they used to support drug legalization. And the opioid epidemic and how it took place changed their minds. And I want to point to a great piece — my former colleague at Vox, German Lopez, wrote about this, where he said that essentially with opioids, you had companies that got a hold of a product. They marketed it irresponsibly and lobbied for lax rules in influencing government, and people died. As he points out, the United States historically is very bad at regulating drugs. Ismail, does the experience of the opioid epidemic — has that changed your viewpoint on what legalization would look like?

No, because I don’t see legalization as only a question of the regulations that have to do with the drug. I think that there are factors beyond just the way opioids are regulated and are regulated that has to do with why there’s a crisis today. And I actually personally tend to frame it as an overdose crisis. I do think opioids are a big part of that. But if you’ve been following the numbers for the last couple of years, it’s absolutely the case that overdoses with methamphetamine and other drugs are also extremely intensely increasing. And the way that, as you said, a certain framework of pharmaceutical regulation has operated with certain opioids is such a good example of what I imagine legalization to be. Like, I think if I were putting together a thinking through with people — what would be an ideal legalization scheme? And I really agree with what Jonathan said, where it’s a case by case basis. And there may be drugs that don’t need or shouldn’t have fully legally regulated systems, and maybe decriminalization is the appropriate environment for that. And maybe decriminalization of certain kinds of behaviors — and I think one really good example that feels like it’s at the center of this is this question about advertising and marketing. I think that what companies are allowed to say, what claims they’re allowed to make, how they’re allowed to advertise, what expectations are setting with consumers — those factors are pretty significant. That’s not to say that if there wasn’t the aggressive marketing campaign with some of these opioids that we’d be in the same or a different position today. It’s really difficult to tell. It’s a system that has been highly affected by interests that are not in that of the consumer, not in the interest of the public. When society was flooded with cigarette ads, a lot of people started smoking more cigarettes. That’s not — and of course, there’s a risk to smoking cigarettes. But to me, that’s an artificial pressure that comes from the market and its incentives. And I think that once you take out some of those things to the extent that that’s possible in a legal market, you might actually be able to adjust some of those outcomes.

But I think that’s the point. It’s easy to imagine an ideal legalization, but that’s not what we’re going to get. We’re going to get the legalization that comes out of our political process and institutions. And marketing is the concrete example. Once a product is legalized, the companies that produce it will enjoy First Amendment commercial free speech protections that will allow them to market.

Should they?

It doesn’t matter whether they should or should not. In the United States, under our Constitution, which protects commercial free speech, they will. In another country, with a different constitution, the government would have greater power to restrict advertising. Many of the current restrictions on cannabis advertising only are constitutional because it is still illegal under federal law.

Yeah, I spent a brief time looking at some of the ads that were made for OxyContin. And there’s one that says that, when you know acetaminophen won’t be enough, OxyContin 12 Hour — which is, like, acetaminophen is Tylenol. And going from Tylenol to OxyContin is a real — it’s a real leap. But I think that gets to something I’m curious about — because the United States has been a leader in determining the control of drug trade and practice, Jonathan, how do you think hypothetically that a legalization or decriminalization would impact international markets? Do you think that there would be a collapse in the price, internationally, of cocaine or heroin? What would that even look like?

Yeah, it’s a great question. And sort of the short answer is that in any place that legalizes and allows for profit industry, you’re going to see a price collapse. And because these things are so easy to smuggle, that would put downward pressure on other countries that are connected commercially to the country that legalized. And in an interconnected world, that’s a lot of places. You’re seeing some of this already, even without legalization, from the switch to synthetics which can be produced anywhere and are easier to produce surreptitiously than with crop based products. And legalization would be a little bit like the innovation of fentanyl coming into the market. It would greatly reduce the cost of production. And over time, that puts downward pressure on prices.

Ismail, I know that your organization has been thinking a lot about this with regard to psychedelics, so whether that’s LSD, whether that’s the use with MDMA in Oregon and other places, psychedelics and the use of psychedelics is getting increasing state support. The California State Senate in June of this year passed a bill that would legalize the social sharing and possession and use of psychedelics. It’s something that’s coming around. What does that look like, and how has your organization participated in that conversation?

Yeah, a couple of things. So I work for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which was founded in 1986 after MDMA was criminalized in an emergency scheduling decision by the D.E.A. MDMA — best known as the active ingredient in ecstasy. It’s now— through MAPS and the Public Benefit Corporation, which we work with — in that entity is taking MDMA through the F.D.A. process, with the intention of having it recognized as a prescription medicine. But while we’re focusing primarily on MDMA, it’s absolutely the case that one of the large goals and kind of value systems that MAPS has utilized over the last 35 years is toward legal, regulated access for psychedelic substances, and specifically, in a legal, medical, or cultural context. And while my personal perspective on this does have to do with really shifting drug laws for all of the substances involved, it is absolutely true that psychedelics are experiencing a kind of like zeitgeist, or some sort of like resurgence in society, now that we have a couple of decades of solid clinical and observational data, you know, depending on the substance, depending on the environment, that show that they may have benefits for certain people in certain mental health contexts. That’s happening simultaneously to this renewed awareness of the spiritual use of some of these substances in certain contexts, which regulatory and structurally speaking, looks very different from like a medicalized, or like, a medical adjacent system. So you mentioned Measure 110 in Oregon. At the same time, Oregon also passed Measure 109, which is a legal psilocybin services system, and psilocybin being the active ingredient in what people call magic mushrooms. And that’s relevant, because it’s actually the first legalized, or attempt at a legalized regulated system for access to one of these substances aside from cannabis. And I’ll just say — to kind of close this thought — that psychedelics are an interesting bridge, because while I think some people want them to be the silver bullet for mental health. And they have all these benefits, and it’s certainly true that for certain people and in certain contexts, they do have tremendous benefit. But they do come with risks. And the thing about psychedelics is that they’re actually more known for their psychological risks as opposed to their physical risks.

And that’s a really interesting thing, because it brings up how we actually navigate and handle mental health in the United States.

I want to push back very lightly on that, because I think that when — in D.C., the language around the decriminalization of mushrooms, which I supported, it very much implied that not only should mushrooms be decriminalized, but that you should do them.

I think that this gets into the question of — we don’t necessarily exist in the ideal regulatory and cultural marketplace for legalized psychedelics or legalized drugs in general. And I’m curious as to how you’re thinking about how, yes, it would be fantastic if these drugs would be used in these safe contexts, in these — whether secular or religious ceremonies, or with the right groups of people. But they won’t be. And I’m curious how you’re thinking about this.

Well, this brings me to the question of education, which we haven’t touched on too much in this conversation yet. I think that the current legal status of psychedelics has — and all drugs - has significantly warped the education that people receive about them. I was part of the DARE generation, and when I learned that —

Oh, I was too.

I was too. Some would say it did not prove effective.

Totally. Do you remember the doobies with the big googly eyes, like, they’re going to come get you. Like, when I learned that methamphetamine and marijuana were not the same, that were they were not equally dangerous, which is what I was taught in sixth grade, I experienced a big rupture where I actually — it was probably the beginning for me of beginning to really doubt what education I was receiving, not just about drugs, but about other things in general. And I would say now, especially looking back at what feels like propaganda for the drug war, it makes it really difficult to trust what kind of education and information people are getting. So to answer your question, you’re right. There’s absolutely no way to control the way people use drugs. Like, there’s no guarantee that even with the best regulatory system and the best policy in every way, people will use them the way that we want every time. However, I do think that stigma and misinformation and drug hysteria contributes to people using drugs in less educated ways. And that’s not to say that more information would fix the overdose crisis. It would not fix a lot of these issues with addiction. But I do think that with psychedelics specifically and especially, better education about the environment would make quite a big difference. One of the most persuasive things I can say when I’m doing advocacy work around psychedelics is that psychedelic therapy is not that fun. I mean, it is true that people can have super ecstatic and joyous experiences with psychedelics, but psychedelic therapy as a treatment modality is actually quite challenging. And dealing with one’s own internalized trauma is not a particularly fun process. It’s not something you want to do at a festival surrounded by your friends. You want to do it in a safe place, maybe with a blanket and some chill music going on, in a room where you can do that with people who you can trust. So it’s — a lot of that has to do with the environment that people are in. And because all psychedelics are equally illegal and you can’t do them anywhere, then that means you can do them anywhere, you know.

Yeah, when you’re surrounded by 90,000 people, it’s maybe not the best time to maybe encounter God.

On the psychedelics, the people who are optimistic about legalization are often very optimistic about the potential of education. My caution is when you allow a for profit industry, a lot of the education, quote unquote, is going to be provided by the industry. You referred earlier to — I may get the details wrong, but I think it might have been a Purdue advertisement that said when Tylenol is not enough, take Oxy. I mean, I don’t have the details right, but that is them trying to educate you about the right — in their mind — set and setting for drug use, not for your benefit, but for their profits’ benefit. Legalizing supply is night and day different than just decriminalizing. The power of the market that is unleashed when you create corporations that make money by inducing greater use of their product, coupled with — intrinsically, some of these products are appealing or addictive — that’s a potent combination we need to be very careful about.

Hi, Jane. My name is Blake and I live in Boston. One thought that’s been occupying my mind, and something I talked to my dad and family about, is on cryptocurrency — in particular, Bitcoin. And I guess one thing that I’ve been struggling with is trying to determine whether I believe it’s something that’s going to stick around or if it’s just a fad. It’s been really hard for me to find sources that are objective and look at both sides of the coin, no pun intended there. Thanks so much. Take care.

Hi Blake. Well, I have a lot of thoughts on cryptocurrency, but I think the question isn’t it a fad, or is it something that’s going to stick around forever, because the answer to both of those can be yes. I don’t think cryptocurrency is going to save the world. I also think that it’s going to be around for a long time. And it’s something that I’d like to learn more about. But I have a feeling that both sides tend to overstate either the importance or the lack of importance of cryptocurrency. That seems to be how this kind of thing goes.

What are you arguing about with your family, your friends, your frenemies? Tell me about the big debate you’re having in a voicemail by calling 347-915-4324, and we might play an excerpt of it on a future episode. Jonathan, can you talk a little bit about overdoses and the potential health impacts?

Opioids are particularly dangerous in terms of overdose risk, but what makes them less problematic because we do have pharmacological therapies for them, methadone being the original and most famous — perhaps buprenorphine. We do not have anything like that in terms of pharmacotherapies for the common stimulants. And it makes a difference, because if you’re going to legalize — particularly legalize supply, allow for profit companies to promote the use, you’re going to get more use. You’ll get more dependence. And it’s a very different thing. If you are choosing policies that promote dependence to something for which there is no real effective treatment, as opposed to opioids — it’s not that opioids are gentle, but we do at least have a treatment.

Ismail, how do we think about recovery, and how do we think about the aftershocks of legalization? I’m just curious how you think about addiction in this conversation.

Yeah, I have what might be a slightly unpopular opinion, especially in today’s time. Like, addiction itself — let’s say, like, drug dependency, to be a little more specific — itself, I don’t necessarily see as a social harm or a social bad. I think that a lot of people manage a lot of addictions totally fine, regularly, because it’s not disruptive to them, because they have access to a safe supply of what it is that they’re addicted to. Of course, the effects of a caffeine addiction or caffeine dependency are significantly less dramatic and less likely to cause some sort of antisocial behavior than a withdrawal from a different substance. But I think that what both Jonathan and you have mentioned, Jane, that I think is more relevant, has to do with the consequences and the secondary effects — of course, on the individual, but especially on society. Alcohol is a great example, because we do have what people would consider a safe supply of alcohol. It’s a regulated product with tons and tons of social externalities that are still there. The difference is that the purchase, the manufacture, the use of alcohol — if criminalized, I believe, would make our current alcohol related issues worse. But I do think that the big difference with other substances is that because they’re criminalized, you have all of those effects, those secondary antisocial effects of dependence or antisocial use, et cetera. And you have the additional layer of criminalization for the use itself. I’m curious about — especially Jonathan’s perspective on this, because there are examples where certain countries like Switzerland are using heroin to manage heroin addiction. Right, they’re actually allowing people to have a safe, consistent supply of heroin. In places like Portugal and Spain, you have a huge percentage of people who were on heroin in the ‘80s and ‘90s who’ve transitioned onto methadone, and are still on methadone decades later. But they’re able to have jobs. They’re able to have families. They’re able to do x, y, z — so.

I think this gets right to the heart of where you and I differ, if I may. I mean, on the last — we had legal supply of prescription opioids and still had a lot of overdoses. There’s no question that an inconsistent supply exacerbates the problem. But I don’t think legal supply of opioids would eliminate overdoses. But to be more fundamental about it, you and I differ on whether or not legal supply necessarily can stabilize a person who is dependent on the substance. To me, that’s substance specific. Caffeine and nicotine are two drugs for which if you have legal supply that is not adulterated and so on, the person can function in everyday life just fine, even if they are dependent. But for the stimulants — crack, methamphetamine, and for alcohol, just providing abundant amounts of unadulterated, free supply does not let those people stabilize their lives. And that has terrible repercussions for them and their families.

Yeah and I would just — to clarify, I don’t necessarily think that an uninterrupted, as much as you want, supply of any drug is going to be good for everyone. Like, I —

Well, that’s what for profit companies are going to want to supply if we legalize.

But there is nuance there. But my question — actually, back to you is — I wonder about your thoughts about why there hasn’t been the same — because while there is a tremendous amount of methamphetamine use, it’s not the case as far as I understand that the increase in methamphetamine use is a result of increased, for example, prescribing of dexamphetamine or other amphetamine analogs that are legal for various treatments, whereas you do see a little bit more of that shift from prescription opioids to underground use of opiates with that market. So I hear what you’re saying. And it seems to be the case that a regulated, safe supply of something like Adderall actually doesn’t have the same effect as in bringing people into a super unregulated, dangerous, unadulterated market in the same way you see with opioids. And it’s true that we also don’t have the pharmaceutical interventions for stimulants as we do with opioids, but I wonder what makes that different. Why are people going to meth in that way versus the other?

Yes, stimulants is a broad category. And some of them are tougher than others. I mean, at some level caffeine is a stimulant, but it’s not a very powerful one, to speak informally, whereas methamphetamine definitely is. Adderall is more on the caffeine end of the spectrum, blessedly, although there is actually some diversion of Adderall. But it’s a different feel. This is like somebody with access to Adderall selling it or giving it to their friend in college to help them study, because they think it’s going to be a performance enhancing smart drug. But on the whole —

I’ve never I’ve never heard of that happening, ever — definitely don’t know anything about that.

Adderall’s worth talking about for a minute here, because it does illustrate the phenomenon that — the trick with providing generous supply to some people is, in part, can they make money by diverting it to other people — money, or do favors for friends. The prescription opioids got out of control for a whole bunch of reasons, many reasons. But one of them was the fact that there was already this value in the illegal market. And you also could seek a prescription based on symptoms that could not be objectively assessed by the clinician. And that combination was a problem. You could show up and say, oh, my back hurts a lot. Give me these things for the cost of a co-pay, and I can turn around and sell them for a lot of money. We’re going to always be vulnerable if you, through the medical system, provide subsidized access to anything for which there is demand in the illegal market. And Adderall does have that character. It just fortunately is nowhere near as bad for you, or risk of overdose, as the opioids were.

Yeah, or meth. I hear that. That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate that answer. And also I think that the other factor, especially with regulated stimulants — and this is, I think also one of the questions with respect to regulations in general, which is method of administration. Because I do think that the fact that you don’t have smokable amphetamines or injectable amphetamines through regulated system also means that people who are accessing it through a regulated market tend to be doing it in a way that’s not going to have the same super rapid onset, and then related withdrawal, et cetera that you might have with methamphetamine use or other related things.

Yeah, I’ll agree with that. And then it’s also location of administration. So cocaine is available as a medicine. It turns out to be a vasoconstrictor and topical anesthetic that’s useful in minor surgeries. We have no problem with diversion of medical cocaine to illegal markets, because it’s only used inside the medical facility, administered by the clinician. So if we were to talk about, like, psychedelics used by a psychiatrist, on site, under supervision, that sort of medical use would have next to no risk of diversion to a market. But if we were ever to say to somebody, here are two pills a day for the next month. Take them home, do what you want with them. Then, there’s much greater risk of some of those being diverted into the market.

Yeah, and just to clarify — the way that psychedelics are being incorporated into health care now, it’s more like a procedure or a surgery than it is like other psychiatric interventions, where it actually is in the presence of a therapist or a psychiatrist or someone who has specific training to work with both these altered states of consciousness as well with the substances themselves.

Jonathan, I’m curious. Are we asking some of the wrong questions about consumption and distribution if we’re thinking about something as big as what decriminalization or legalization of substances beyond marijuana would look like?

Well, first of all, the bigness of decriminalize and legalize are very, very different. Decriminalization would be a big change, but it’s not a change the world. Legalization of supply, that’s totally different. You said that’s a big shake up. It’s a once in a century event. I would just stress — it’s a once and for all time event. Once you create a legal industry, it’s going to be really hard to get rid of it. When you create a legal industry, you create a powerful lobbying force. One of the challenges we have is regulatory capture. It’s already starting with cannabis. We haven’t even gotten to national legalization yet. But you just presume- - if you’re going to legalize supply of something, presume that there will be regulatory capture, presume you will never go back. And presume that a lot of the regulations are actually going to be shaped by what’s in the industry interests much more so than public health. Public health doesn’t tend to win in the lobbying battles against industry.

I totally agree that legalizing drugs, legalizing supply would be a generational event. It would be a massive, massive shift in the way things are done — even though, as I like to remind people, drugs were legal and traded until about 100 years ago. And it was US pressure on international actors that really brought us into the realm of prohibition that we have now — among others, because even large colonial powers, the Dutch and the English and others, were very happily trading a lot of these drugs for a long time before prohibition in its current form existed. So I also think that we are in a new paradigm in the sense that people have much more awareness and a willingness to talk through the stigma around the dependency and addiction and so on. And that does give me hope, that as we look at these questions around advertising and marketing and so on, that maybe it is possible that these public health perspectives could be better considered. I hope that our experience with tobacco and with opioids could lead to a more rational drug policy with respect to legal access of other substances. That could be naively optimistic, but I feel like as a policy reform advocate, if I’m not somewhat optimistic, then there’s really no point to going forward. And I think it’s really good to have some level of possibility for what there could be beyond where — we currently are.

I admire that optimism. I’m usually the one who’s accused of being optimistic. Compared to you, I guess I’m the jaded, cynical one. We’ll see.

Jonathan, Ismail, thank you so much for joining me. And I really appreciated this conversation.

Good. It was a joy to be here.

Thanks so much, Jonathan. Thank you so much, Jane.

Ismail Ali is a Policy and Advocacy Director at the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. Jonathan P. Caulkins is the H. Guyford Stever University Professor of Operations, Research, and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. If you want to learn more about drug policy of the United States, I recommend “Is There A Case For Legalizing Heroin” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker, published in April of 2021. For the other side, you can read “The Drug Policy Roulette” by Jonathan P. Caulkins and Michael A.C. Lee in the National Affairs Summer 2012 edition. And listen to “Michael Pollan’s ‘Trip Report,’” an episode on The New York Times opinion podcast “Sway.” You can find links to all of these in our episode notes.

“The Argument” is a production of New York Times opinion. It’s produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez, and Vishakha Darbha, edited by Alison Bruzek and Sarah Geis, with original music and sound design by Isaac Jones. Additional engineering by Carole Sabouraud, and additional mixing by Sonia Herrero. Fact checking by Kate Sinclair, and audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks this week to Kristin Lin.

December 14, 2022 • 40:31 The Libertarian Party Became Too Extreme for Me, So I Changed My Political Allegiance
December 7, 2022 • 31:32 Should America Intervene in Haiti? ‘Go to Hell’ and Other Views
November 30, 2022 • 34:51 How to Perform Normalcy — and Why the Democrats Should Give It a Try
November 16, 2022 • 27:49 Has Donald Trump Lost His Grip on the Republican Party?
November 9, 2022 • 26:31 Donald Trump Was the Midterm’s Biggest Loser
November 2, 2022 • 35:21 The Price of $5 Donations: Is Small-Dollar Fund-Raising Doing More Harm Than Good?
October 26, 2022 • 36:21 ‘Maybe Gen Z Is Just Kinder’: How America’s Youngest Voters Are Shaping Politics
October 19, 2022 • 31:24 Has Polling Broken Politics?
October 12, 2022 • 39:53 Is America Headed for Another Civil War?
October 5, 2022 • 31:58 Are You ‘Third-Party-Curious’? Andrew Yang and David Jolly Would Like a Word.
September 28, 2022 • 32:23 After Dobbs: What Is Feminist Sex?
September 21, 2022 • 32:58 After Dobbs: Feminism Beyond the Gender Binary

Produced by ‘The Argument’

Medical marijuana is now legal in more than half of the country . The cities of Denver, Seattle , Washington and Oakland, Calif., have also decriminalized psilocybin (the psychedelic element in “magic mushrooms”). Oregon went one step further, decriminalizing all drugs in small quantities, including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.

Attitudes toward drugs have changed considerably over the years. But the question of whether all drugs should be legalized continues to be contentious. How much have attitudes toward illegal drugs changed? And why?

[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple , Spotify or Google or wherever you get your podcasts .]

This week, Jane Coaston talks to Ismail Ali, the policy and advocacy director for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, and Jonathan P. Caulkins, a professor of operations research and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, about the pros and cons of legalizing all drugs.

Mentioned in this episode:

“ Is there a Case for Legalizing Heroin? ” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker

“ The Drug-Policy Roulette ” by Jonathan P. Caulkins and Michael A.C. Lee in the National Affairs Summer 2012 edition

“ Michael Pollan’s ‘Trip Report,’ ” on The New York Times Opinion podcast “Sway”

(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)

Thoughts? Email us at [email protected] or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)

By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.

“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha and edited by Alison Bruzek and Sarah Geis; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones; mixing by Sonia Herrero, and audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

Drug Legalization and Decriminalization Beliefs Among Substance-Using and Non-using Individuals

Associated data, objectives:.

There has been advocacy for legalization of abusable substances, but systematic data on societal beliefs regarding such legalization are limited. People who use substances may have unique beliefs about legalization, and this study assessed whether they would be in favor of drug legalization/decriminalization. It was hypothesized that those who use particular drugs (especially marijuana) would support its legalization/decriminalization, but that this would not be the case across all classes (especially opioids and stimulants).

A nationwide sample of 506 adults were surveyed online to assess demographic characteristics, substance misuse, and beliefs regarding drug legalization/decriminalization. Legalization/decriminalization beliefs for specific drugs were assessed on an 11-point scale (0=strongly disagree; 10=strongly agree).

For persons with opioid misuse (15.4%), when asked about their agreement with: “heroin should be legalized,” the mean score was 4.6 (SEE= 0.4; neutral). For persons with stimulant misuse (12.1%), when asked about their agreement with: “cocaine should be legalized,” the score was 4.2(0.5). However, for persons with marijuana misuse (34.0%), when asked about their agreement with: “medical marijuana should be legalized” the score was 8.2 (0.3; indicating agreement), and for “recreational marijuana” the score was also 8.2(0.3).

Conclusions:

These results suggest that persons who used marijuana strongly support the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, whereas persons who primarily have opioid or stimulant misuse have less strongly held beliefs about legalization of substances within those respective categories. By including those who misuse drugs, these data assist in framing discussions of drug legalization and have the potential to inform drug policy considerations.

1.0. Introduction

Substance use is a major concern in both the United States (US) and abroad, with important consequences related not only to morbidity and mortality, but legal and economic concerns as well. In 2010, the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study found that mental illness was the leading cause of years living with disability worldwide, with illicit substance use disorders (SUDs) and alcohol use disorders (AUDs) accounting for 11% and 10% of disability-adjusted life years within that category, respectively ( Whiteford et al., 2013 ). The 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) estimates that 7.8% of adults in the US had a SUD during that year ( Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2017 ).

While much drug use remains illegal, there are growing efforts to legalize and/or decriminalize certain drug classes (such as marijuana and heroin), despite international drug treaties prohibiting the non-medical use of marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, and heroin ( Hall, 2017 ). This is related, in part, to evidence that drugs such as marijuana or heroin, which had been previously categorized as having no medicinal value, may have potential medical benefit. These efforts are also premised upon the experiences of countries like Portugal, which decriminalized all illicit drugs in 2001 and reported subsequent decreases in drug-related societal problems, as well as support for legalizing drugs like marijuana for non-medical use in countries such as Canada and Uruguay ( Room, 2014 ; Goncalves et al., 2015 ; Cox, 2018 ). Several European countries and Canada have now endorsed the use of medicinal injectable and oral heroin (diacetylmorphine or diamorphine) as an effective medication for heroin use disorder among persons who are not otherwise responding to treatments ( Ayanga et al., 2016 ).

The US is beginning to demonstrate varied support for drug legalization and decriminalization. For instance, although not formally supported by the US federal government, eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, and twenty-nine states have legalized medicinal marijuana. However, systematic data on the opinions of Americans regarding the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana are lacking, and attitudes regarding the legalization/decriminalization of other substances are even sparser. Data show that the public’s opinions about marijuana seem to have changed over time ( Carliner et al., 2017 ), with 12% of the public supporting legalization in 1969 (based on survey data), compared with 61% per an online poll conducted in 2017 ( Geiger, 2018 ). Another recent online poll of registered US voters found that a modest majority (68%) was in support of legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, with 52% supporting its legalization for recreational purposes. However, this sample was vastly opposed to the legalization and decriminalization of other drugs (including cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine), for both medical and recreational purposes ( Lopez, 2016 ).

Opinions about drug legalization/decriminalization can differ based on whether a person has a personal history of substance use and as a function of demographic and ideological characteristics (such a religious or political preference); these associations have only been evaluated in a few studies. The first such study was conducted in 2002 among 188 out-of-treatment persons who used substances, and persons who did not use substances, from low income, high drug-use sections of a US urban setting (Houston, TX), and reported that persons who used substances (marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) were more likely to support the legalization of marijuana (68% in favor) than persons who did not use substances (33%), while each group showed little support for the legalization of heroin (12% vs. 8%) or cocaine (14% vs. 8%, respectively; Trevino and Richard, 2002 ). More recently, an online poll reported that Americans identifying as Democrats were more likely to be in favor of marijuana legalization (69%) than Republicans (43%). Also, white mainline Protestants were more in favor of marijuana legalization (64%) than white evangelical Protestants (38%) or Catholics (52%), while those who were not affiliated with any religion showed the highest support (78%; Geiger, 2018 ).

These polls have various limitations, and have not focused upon the attitudes and beliefs of people who use drugs. This population may have unique beliefs about legalization and/or decriminalization of a drug - either their drug of choice, or illicit drugs more broadly. The direct experience of using a drug might predispose a person to support more ready availability of that drug or, conversely, might make a person more cautious about decreasing barriers to its use. Survey data have demonstrated that opinions on drug legalization/decriminalization can differ based on the person’s belief system, such as varying as a function of political or religious affiliation. Persons who are generally more conservative may not be in favor of legalizing or decriminalizing substances. Surprisingly, there is little information on attitudes regarding legalization/decriminalization of drugs that systematically evaluates these domains. This study aimed to address this gap by surveying both persons who used substances and persons who did not use substances about their opinions regarding legalization and decriminalization of drugs, and to also evaluate whether differences in these attitudes were associated with different religious and political affiliations, or the lack thereof, as a secondary outcome. It was hypothesized that individuals who use marijuana would support the legalization and decriminalization of that drug, but that this would not be the case for heroin or cocaine among persons who used opioids or stimulants, respectively.

2.0. Methods

2.1. participants.

The sample was recruited online between July and November 2017. Participants (N=506) were registered as “workers” on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) platform ( Paolacci et al., 2010 ; Bartneck et al., 2015 ), which is an online forum where workers can anonymously complete tasks (such as surveys) assigned by “requestors” for a wage. Workers receive requestor approval ratings based on the quality of their work and completion time, which serves as an index of credibility and reliability ( Peer et al., 2014 ). To take the present survey, workers had to have an average requestor approval rating of 90% (as a quality control measure) and be located in the US. A short screening survey was given to ensure that participants were at least 18 years old, and it included other demographic questions, such as sex and race, to distract from the subject of the survey. The screening survey also limited the number of persons per category of primary substance used (including no use) using quotas, with a goal of obtaining at least 60 people in each primary substance category. A total of 2,672 persons attempted the screening survey, and 545 persons completed the primary survey. Those who were not eligible to continue on to the primary survey received $0.10 for completing the screening survey. After providing consent by agreeing to participate in the survey, those who answered questions in the primary survey received a bonus of two dollars, for a total of $2.10. The following quality control questions were included: 1) “Have you taken this survey before?” and 2) “Is there any reason for which we should not use your responses? For instance, you weren’t paying attention, you did not answer honestly, you had major computer issues, etc.” Those who answered “yes” to either of these questions were not included. The survey was hosted on Qualtrics (Provo, UT). The Johns Hopkins University Institutional Review Board approved the use of AMT for this survey research.

2.2. Measures

Demographic and drug use characteristics:.

Primary survey questions included demographic information such as education level, employment status, and income, as well as characteristics related to religious and political affiliations and whether the participant or someone close to them had ever experienced legal consequences related to substance use ( Table 1 ). Participants were asked whether they identified with a particular religion and to choose which major political party they identified with most among a list of the most common options; the options “none” and “other” were also provided. Additionally, participants were provided a list of substances and asked which they had used in the past year (including a write-in “other” option); for each substance they reported using, they were then asked to characterize use based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) SUD criteria ( American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ). Answering “yes” to two or more symptoms was operationalized as meeting criteria for a SUD for that substance. Participants who indicated using more than one substance in the past year were asked to identify which substance they would consider their primary substance; this was the basis upon which they were categorized for the remainder of the survey analyses.

Participant demographic data (N=506) 1

Decriminalization and Legalization Questions:

Participants were provided with definitions of legalization and decriminalization, and were then asked to rate their level of agreement with statements about legalization and decriminalization of heroin, cocaine, medical marijuana, and recreational marijuana on an 11-point scale with 0 representing “strongly disagree,” and 10 representing “strongly agree.” Some statements were worded in support of legalization/decriminalization of the substance while others were worded against legalization/decriminalization, to ensure participants were maintaining attention. Responses to the latter were reverse coded for consistency in reporting.

2.3. Statistical analyses

Participants were categorized into groups based on their self-reported primary substance used in the past year, with heroin and prescription painkiller misuse (taking pills other than how they were prescribed) collapsed into the “opioids” group; cocaine, methamphetamines, prescription stimulant misuse, or other stimulant use collapsed into the “stimulants” group; marijuana products, including synthetics, making up the “marijuana” group; any alcohol use included in the “alcohol” group; and no substance use in the “none” group. The degree to which demographic characteristics were associated with ratings for decriminalization/legalization was also assessed. Some demographic characteristics with multiple subgroups were dichotomized given limited numbers in some subgroups, including marital status (never married vs. ever married), race (minority vs. Caucasian), employment status (employed full time vs. other), education level (associates degree vs. less education), household income (less than or equal to $45,000 vs. more than $45,000) and political affiliation (Democrat vs. other).

Opinions on drug legalization and decriminalization as a function of primary substance used served as the primary analyses, while all others were secondary analyses. Categorical data, including demographics and SUD categorization were analyzed with chi-square analyses. Continuous data, such as age and drug legalization/decriminalization ratings, were analyzed with ANOVA or ANCOVA as appropriate. ANCOVAs controlled for those demographic variables that were significantly different among groups and showed a significant relationship with the outcome measure (see Table 2 ). Between-group planned comparisons of drug legalization/decriminalization ratings were compared between the primary substance categories, and then as a function of the group for whom the rating was deemed most relevant (e.g., ratings for heroin among persons who primarily used opioids, for cocaine among persons who primarily used stimulants, and for medical/recreational marijuana among persons who primarily used marijuana). Analyses used Type III sums of squares and planned comparisons among the primary substance use groups, and Pearson’s correlations to evaluate the relationship between legalization/decriminalization ratings. The primary outcome variables (legalization and decriminalization ratings) were not normally distributed. For the analyses in which we needed to control for certain demographic variables, ANCOVA were used as the main analyses, based on support for analyzing Likert data with parametric statistics ( Lubke and Muthén, 2004 ; De Winter and Dodou, 2010 ). The analyses by primary substance were significant when analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis tests, indicating that parametric and nonparametric statistics are approximately equivalent for these data. There were minor exceptions among the secondary analyses, but not the primary analyses. All analyses were performed in SPSS version 24.0. Statistical tests were considered significant at the p < 0.05 level.

Level of agreement with statements as a function of primary substance used 1

3.0. Results

3.1. participant characteristics.

A total of 506 participants completed the survey ( Table 1 ). Over the time of enrollment, the screening process targeted participants to ensure there were at least 60 subjects for each primary substance category. The final population had a mean age of 33.6 years old and was 53.0% male, 45.5% single (never married), and 25.9% racial minority (i.e., not Caucasian). Sixty-two percent of participants were employed full-time, 59.1% had at least an Associate’s degree, and 50.4% had a yearly household income of $45,000 or less. Among the total population, 36.4% of persons had experienced a legal consequence related to substance use among themselves or someone close to them. This was significantly more common among persons who used opioids (35.9%), stimulants (39.3%), marijuana (43.0%), or alcohol (36.4%), compared to those without substance use (19.5%). Participants were located in 43 states and the District of Columbia. For those persons who self-reported a primary substance used in the past year (N=429; 84.8%), a substantial proportion within each substance category reported symptoms meeting criteria for a SUD, including OUD (33/78; 42.3% of persons with opioid misuse), stimulant use disorder (25/61; 41.0%), marijuana use disorder (35/172; 20.3%), and AUD (39/118; 33.1%).

3.2. Preference for drug legalization and decriminalization of specific drug categories ( Table 2 )

3.2.1. heroin.

Overall, participants were not in favor of legalizing heroin (mean 3.8/10 for the total sample). However, persons whose primary substance was an opioid tended to have higher ratings (reflecting more positive attitudes) towards legalizing heroin (4.6/10) than persons who were classified as having primarily stimulant (3.3/10) or alcohol (3.4/10) use, as well as persons with no past-year substance use (3.4/10). The ratings of those with primary opioid misuse were similar to the ratings of persons with primary marijuana misuse with respect to attitudes towards heroin legalization (4.2/10). Ratings among all groups for decriminalization of heroin were even lower (total mean 2.9/10) indicating general lack of support. Persons who primarily misused opioids rated heroin decriminalization at 3.1 on average, which was not significantly different from other groups.

3.2.2. Cocaine

Similarly, the total sample of 506 persons was not in favor of cocaine legalization (3.8/10) or decriminalization (3.3/10). Persons with stimulant misuse rated cocaine legalization (4.2/10) and decriminalization (3.5/10) in a comparably low manner. Those who primarily used marijuana rated their agreement with cocaine decriminalization significantly higher (4.4/10), compared to those with primary alcohol use (2.8/10) and those with no use (2.8/10).

3.2.3. Marijuana

The total group of 506 participants was generally more in favor of the legalization and decriminalization of both medical (means for legalization = 7.2/10 and for decriminalization = 8.3/10) and recreational marijuana (legalization = 7.2/10 and decriminalization = 7.4/10), compared to legalization or decriminalization of heroin and cocaine. When examining the specific substance use groups, persons without any past-year substance use had lower ratings regarding legalization and decriminalization of marijuana, compared to other primary substance use groups. Conversely, persons with primary marijuana use had higher ratings for marijuana legalization (medical and recreational both = 8.2/10) and decriminalization (medical = 9.2/10 and recreational = 8.4/10).

3.3. Ratings as a function of primary substance used

This study hypothesized that respondents who identified a particular substance as their primary substance of use over the past year might be more inclined to see that substance legalized and/or decriminalized (particularly for marijuana). Results demonstrated that participants categorized as having primary opioid or stimulant misuse rated legalization and decriminalization of heroin and cocaine, respectively, at significantly lower values (indicating less endorsement) when compared to how those with primary marijuana use rated legalization and decriminalization of both medical and recreational marijuana (see corresponding cells of Table 2 ).

3.4. Religious characteristics

Whether persons identified with a particular religion or not proved to be an important variable among demographic characteristics, as well as legalization/decriminalization ratings (with religion serving as a covariate for those analyses). Thirty percent of participants identified with a religion. A significantly lower proportion of persons who used marijuana (21.5%) identified with a religion, compared to those who primarily used alcohol (37.3%), stimulants (36.1%), or no substances (37.7%). Similarly, those who identified with a religion were significantly less likely to report primary marijuana use (23.7%) than those who did not (38.6%). However, those persons who identified with a religion and used substances were significantly more likely to endorse 2 or more criteria on the DSM-5 SUD checklist (37.8%) than those who used substances but did not identify with a particular religion (27.8%).

There were statistically significant, though weak, negative correlations between identifying with a religion, and all drug legalization/decriminalization ratings (see Supplemental Table 1 ). Participants with a self-reported religious affiliation had significantly lower mean legalization/decriminalization ratings compared to those without any religious affiliation ( Figure 1a ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1586035-f0001.jpg

Mean drug legalization/decriminalization ratings as a function of (a) religious or (b) political affiliation 1

1 Scales rated from 0–10, with 0 being strongly disagree and 10 being strongly agree. Unadjusted mean differences between groups were assessed with one-way ANOVA, with Tukey’s post hoc comparisons among political groups. Asterisks indicate p < 0.05 (b). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean (SEM). Asterisks indicate p < 0.05 when comparing persons who identify as republicans to those who identify as Democrats or have no political affiliation. Abbreviations: L- legalization, D- decriminalization, MMJ- medical marijuana, RMJ- recreational marijuana

3.5. Political characteristics

Political party affiliation (or the lack thereof) was also a significant factor among the demographic makeup of this population, their substance use, and opinions on drug legalization/decriminalization (making it a covariate for these analyses). The majority of persons surveyed (88.7%) were registered to vote. Fifty-one percent of participants identified with the Democratic Party, and the proportion of persons who used marijuana and identified as Democrats (60.5%) was significantly higher than those who primarily used alcohol (44.1%) or no substances (42.9%). Those who identified as Democrats were significantly more likely to use marijuana (40%) compared to non-Democrats (27.6%). Among those persons whose primary substance was alcohol, Democrats were significantly less likely to have an alcohol use disorder (12.7%) compared to non-Democrats (19.1%). Persons who identified as Republicans had significantly lower legalization/decriminalization ratings for each substance compared to those who identified as Democrats and those without any political affiliation (see Figure 1b ).

3.6. Ratings as a function of having a DSM-5 SUD vs. no SUD within primary drug categories

It is also possible that people with a more severe pattern of use (i.e., a SUD) would be more supportive of legalizing and/or decriminalizing the substance they use. However, there were no differences in ratings for legalization and decriminalization for any substance when comparing persons who use a substance but did not fulfill the DSM-5 SUD criteria, with those within that substance category who did meet the DSM-5 SUD criteria (data not shown).

3.7. Correlation of medical marijuana ratings to ratings of other substances

The use of medical marijuana is becoming more acceptable across the US, and it is possible that people who support the legalization/decriminalization of medical marijuana may also be open to supporting the legalization/decriminalization of other substances. We found a significant, though at times weak, positive correlation between how much participants agreed that medical marijuana should be decriminalized with ratings on heroin decriminalization (r=0.13, p=0.003), cocaine decriminalization (r= 0.15, p=0.001), recreational marijuana legalization (r=0.37, p=0.000) and recreational marijuana decriminalization (r=0.39, p=0.000). There was a significant, positive correlation between how participants rated medical marijuana legalization, and decriminalization of cocaine (r=0.09, p=0.038), legalization of recreational marijuana (r=0.43, p=0.000) and decriminalization of recreational marijuana (r=0.28, p=0.000).

4.0. Discussion

The current study provides new insights into opinions regarding the legalization and decriminalization of heroin, cocaine and marijuana. This study is unique in examining attitudes as a function of past year drug use, and hypothesized that persons who used substances would have differing drug legalization/decriminalization ratings for their self-reported primary substance, especially when comparing persons who primarily used marijuana to those who primarily used opioids and stimulants. Our hypothesis was supported by these findings, as persons who primarily used marijuana rated both the legalization and decriminalization of this drug favorably, but persons who primarily used opioids and simulants rated their support for both the legalization and decriminalization of heroin and cocaine relatively low, respectively. We found that overall most respondents were in favor of the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana (both medical and recreational), but not heroin and cocaine. These findings are consistent with the limited data that is currently known about opinions on marijuana legalization and decriminalization ( Lopez, 2016 ; Carliner et al., 2017 ; Geiger, 2018 ) as well as, heroin and cocaine ( Trevino and Richard, 2002 ; Geiger, 2018 ), though this is the first hypothesis-driven study of its kind since recent changes in marijuana laws have been made. Of note, while the concepts of legalization and decriminalization are fundamentally different, and were asked about separately in our survey, we found that they tended to track together (i.e. for each drug the mean ratings were either low, or below five, as in the case of heroin and cocaine, or above 5, as in the case of both recreational and medical marijuana). Thus, we will discuss the attitudes about both together.

These findings are particularly important because persons who misuse legal or illicit substances often have had interactions with the legal system, which may influence their attitudes and beliefs. Over a third of our participants had experienced legal consequences related to substance use themselves or through someone close to them. Data from the 2002–2008 NSDUH survey provides corroborating evidence of this relationship between drug use and legal consequences by showing that among those who had past year illicit drug dependence or abuse, 18% and 36% had been arrested once or more than once that year, respectively. Within the subsample of NSDUH respondents reporting past year alcohol dependence or abuse, these values increased to 38% and 52%, respectively ( Lattimore et al., 2014 ). The estimated prevalence of SUDs among incarcerated persons, while largely varied across studies, is substantial within both female (30–60%) and male (10–48%) prisoners ( Gerstein and Harwood, 1990 ; Mason et al., 1997 ; Lo and Stephens, 2000 ; Fazel et al., 2006 ). The high prevalence and comorbidity with SUDs indicates that legal issues are a significant factor in the current climate of substance use in the US.

The majority of our participants were not in favor of legalizing nor decriminalizing heroin and cocaine, even if they or someone they knew had suffered legal consequences related to substance use, or if they themselves met criteria for a SUD. These findings suggest that this population would not support policy changes related to heroin and cocaine legalization/decriminalization, which may reflect their own experiences, making them more cautious about increasing availability of these drugs. This sample was generally supportive of legalization and decriminalization of both medical and recreational marijuana. However, persons without any substance use in the last 12 months had significantly lower ratings than other groups, and were mainly neutral about marijuana legalization/decriminalization. The exception was that persons with no primary substance use had a higher rating on decriminalization of medical marijuana (mean 7.1/10) compared with their other ratings, perhaps because this was the most conservative marijuana option given. Interestingly, there was a positive relationship between agreement with decriminalizing medical marijuana, and decriminalizing heroin, cocaine, and recreational marijuana among our total population, suggesting an openness to minimizing criminal consequences associated with medical marijuana tracked with openness to the same for other drugs.

Understanding attitudes and associated characteristics towards drug legalization and decriminalization is important, especially in the currently changing social landscape, as several states in the US have passed laws legalizing and/or decriminalizing marijuana. For example, a study involving persons who voted on the initiative to legalize marijuana in Washington state reported that once marijuana stores began to open, persons who previously voted against the initiative were more likely to change their vote, if given the chance, compared to those who had voted in support of it ( Subbaraman and Kerr, 2016 ). Given the current changing environment, it is timely to determine whether persons continue to support legalization/decriminalization of marijuana and, more broadly, whether they would support legalization/decriminalization of other illicit drugs. Additionally, with other countries conducting research on heroin as a treatment for OUD ( Ayanga et al., 2016 ), it is important to consider how this may be perceived in the US and whether attitudes vary as a function of demographic and/or ideological beliefs.

There are several limitations to this work. The use of an online survey through AMT involves some selection bias, and resulted in a population which, while diverse, is not completely representative of the US population as a whole though it is demographically consistent with other studies involving AMT workers ( Chandler and Shapiro, 2016 ). Additional studies conducted within a representative sample of the US population would be helpful to determine the impact of demographic characteristics, as well as legal status of marijuana in the state of residence, on perceptions of drug decriminalization/legalization. The fact that self-reported substance use was not verified, and was from an anonymous population, is another limitation, in addition to the fact that all persons who used opioids or stimulants were grouped together, due to small numbers, instead of being able to assess those who used heroin and cocaine, specifically. We were also unable to look at how the use of multiple substances (especially those with primary use of alcohol, a legal substance, in addition to illegal substances) affected attitudes toward drug legalization/decriminalization.

This study appears to be the first to systematically study opinions of persons from across the US who use substances, and those who do not, about the legalization and decriminalization of multiple substances, and results have relevance for current and future policies. Legalization/decriminalization of marijuana was supported, but not in the case of other drugs, despite changes in apparent attitudes in other countries. As more information is learned about potential health benefits of certain substances that may drive policy changes in favor of their legalization/decriminalization, it is critical that persons who are directly affected by any policy changes (i.e. those who use substances) be included in these discussions to provide their unique perspectives. Studies among persons in SUD treatment, or those with varying SUD severity, are also warranted, as they may prove even more insightful to inform policies on legalization/decriminalization and the use of currently illicit drugs as treatment for SUDs. It is also important to monitor and track the evolution in changes in attitudes and beliefs over time. These nuances may impact public health messaging and the ability to target certain groups.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental table, conflict of interest and source of funding:.

This work was supported by internal funding from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. No conflicts declared.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®) . Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Pub; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
Ayanga D, Shorter D, Kosten TR. Update on pharmacotherapy for treatment of opioid use disorder . Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016; 17 : 2307–2318. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bartneck C, Duense A, Moltchanova E, Zawieska K. Comparing the similarity of responses received from studies in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to studies conducted online and with direct recruitment . PloS one 2015; 10 : e0121595. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carliner H, Brown QL, Sarvet AL, Hasin DS. Cannabis use, attitudes, and legal status in the US: A review . Prev Med 2017; 104 :13–23. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables ; 2017. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/ . Accessed May 22, 2018.
Chandler J, Shapiro D. Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples . Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2016; 12 :53–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cox C The Canadian Cannabis Act legalizes and regulates recreational cannabis use in 2018 . Health Policy 2018; 122 :205–209. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Winter JC, Dodou D. Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon . Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 2010; 15 :1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
Fazel S, Bains P, Doll H. Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review . Addiction 2006; 101 :181–191. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Geiger A About six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization . 2018. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/05/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ . Accessed May 22, 2018.
Gerstein DR, Harwood HJ. Treating drug problems: A study of the evolution, effectiveness, and financing of public and private drug treatment systems (Vol. 1) . Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 1990. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goncalves R, Lourenco A, Silva SN. A social cost perspective in the wake of the Portuguese strategy for the fight against drugs . Int J Drug Policy 2015; 26 :199–209. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hall W The future of the international drug control system and national drug prohibitions . Addiction 2017; 113 ( 7 ):1210–1223. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lattimore PK, Steffey DM, Gfroerer J, et al. Arrestee substance use: comparison of estimates from the national survey on drug use and health and the arrestee drug abuse monitoring program . Rockville (MD): Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2014. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lo CC, Stephens RC. Drugs and prisoners: Treatment needs on entering prison . The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse 2000; 26 : 229–245. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lopez G Poll: The only drug Americans want to legalize is marijuana . 2016. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11224500/marijuana-legalization-war-on-drugs-pol . Accessed May 22, 2018.
Lubke GH, Muthén BO. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons . Structural equation modeling 2004; 11 :514–534. [ Google Scholar ]
Mason D, Birmingham L, Grubin D. Substance use in remand prisoners: a consecutive case study . BMJ 1997; 315 :18–21. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk . Judgment and Decision Making 2010; 5 ( 5 ):411–419. [ Google Scholar ]
Peer E, Vosgerau J, Acquisti A. Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk . Behavior research methods 2014; 46 :1023–1031. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Room R Legalizing a market for cannabis for pleasure: Colorado, Washington, Uruguay and beyond . Addiction 2014; 109 ;345–351. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Subbaraman MS, Kerr WC. Marijuana policy opinions in Washington state since legalization: would voters vote the same way? Contemporary drug problems 2016; 43 :369–380. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Trevino RA, Richard AJ. Attitudes towards drug legalization among drug users . Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2002; 28 :91–108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 . The Lancet 2013; 382 :1575–1586. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Mon 14 Feb 2022

Five benefits of legalising drugs that may change your perspective

By Ariana Yekrangi

Legalising drugs would make drug use safer, but the bigger impact of moving to a regulated drug market is that it would defy racism, reduce chaos and violence and make us wealthier.

What does decriminalisation of drugs mean VS what does it mean to legalise drugs

When we talk about decriminalising all drugs, within a legal framework, we don’t necessarily refer to them being legalised. In other words, drug ownership and personal use would itself still be legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Ideally, we want the legalisation of all drugs, however, decriminalising them could also be an attractive short-term solution. Here are five arguments for legalising drugs.

1. Reducing drug violence and regulating its consumption

Will legalising drugs reduce drug trafficking.

The global market for goods, including drugs, is based on the simple principle of supply and demand. When a government reduces the supply of any particular drug without reducing its demand for it, its price goes up. However, unlike many other goods, the consumption of drugs is not particularly price-sensitive.

As the notorious United States’ ban of alcohol during the 1920s demonstrated, public demand for the drug remained high, which in turn fueled an increase in bootleg booze and speakeasies. But that wasn’t all. It aided the emergence of various mafia gangs and other crime syndicates.

This is often known as the balloon effect, referring to the fact that when squeezing an inflated balloon, it just moves the air around, instead of completely getting rid of it.

Legalising drugs gives us a unique opportunity to address this issue and remove much of the crime and violence associated with it. In 2018, the number of drug-related homicides in Mexico was a whopping 33,341. Imagine saving this amount of lives, just in Mexico!

Moreover, legalising drugs further allows us to regulate its consumption. Currently, most children are easily able to buy various drugs from their friendly neighbourhood dealers, since selling drugs to children isn’t a moral code most drug cartels swear by.

The solution is simple: let us run the drug market, not gangsters!

2. A unique chance to defy racism

Across many nations, drug laws are not only unnecessarily strict, but also fuel systemic racism. This is not breaking news and can easily be observed if one takes the time to look at the relevant data.

In September, Simon Woolley, an ex-No 10 adviser warned Borris Johnson’s government about this very issue: “For decades, politicians from all sides have either turned a blind eye to drug policy failures or weaponised the debate to score cheap political points,” he said. “This has led to half a century of stagnation, which has landed with force on our black communities, driving up needless criminalisation and undermining relationships with the police.”

However, this is not a unique case in the UK. Across the Atlantic, in the United States, black people are several times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession; even though both groups smoke weed at similar rates. Just in 2020, people of colour made up 94% of marijuana arrests by the NYPD .

But it is not only the legal system that suffers from systematic racism; the name of a drug like Marijuana, for example, has a clear racist background.

The use of the word Marijuana increased dramatically in the US during William Randolph Hearst’s desperate campaign to create hysteria around the impact of cannabis. In fact, he decided to use a foreign-sounding name (Marijuana) to scare off Americans about an invasion of marijuana-smoking Mexican men assaulting their white women. Scary heh?

True, legalising drugs will not, by itself, solve racism. However, numerous studies have already proven that as the general number of arrests decline, so do the racial disparities that come with them.

3. Stopping systematic drug-related human rights abuses around the world

Capital punishment for drug trafficking is a serious offence across human right’s violating countries such as China, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Vietnam. According to Harm Reduction International, as of 2020, thirty-five countries still retain the death penalty for drug offences.

These thirty-five nations continue to undermine the human rights and well-being of persons who use drugs and that of their families and communities. The practice is not only a blatant breach of drug user’s/traffickers human rights, but also one which is in clear violation of international law.

In 2020, Amnesty International recorded at least 30 executions for drug-related offences carried out in only three countries (China, Iran and Saudi Arabia), a decrease of 75% from 2019. Do keep in mind though that the 75% reduction in executions is during a period when most countries are hit by the Covid pandemic and were likely to have strict quarantine and lockdown measures in place. The figure was drastically higher in the anteceding years. In 2019, 122 drug-related executions were confirmed, whereas in 2015 the number of executions was a whopping 755.

Legalising drugs will have an immense impact on the lives of hundreds who are killed as well as thousands of others across the globe who are on death row for various drug offences.

The United Nations’ 2019 report “ What we have learned over the last ten years ” is a comprehensive resource on the organisation’s commitments on drug-related matters. One only needs to hope that the UN approaches its solutions with adamant hands.

4. Actually helping addicts

Would legalising drugs increase addiction.

Pretty much everything we have been taught about addiction is a fab. Most don’t get addicted because it is fun, most don’t enjoy being junkies.

During the 1970s, Bruce Alexander, a Canadian psychologist, published a number of studies known as the “rat park experiments”. The experiment essentially studied two groups of rats, both of which were pre-addicted to morphine. The first group was placed in separate cages, while the other group was added to a rat colony, with regular social access to other rats where they could play and have plenty of sex.

Already becoming jealous? No? Just me? Moving on…

During this period, both groups were offered a choice between water and a morphine solution. The shocking result was that the rats living together in the colony drank significantly less morphine than those living alone in isolation.

A similar conclusion resulted from a study conducted on US servicemen returning from the Vietnam war. During various military urine tests in 1971, it became clear that drug use amongst soldiers in Vietnam had reached epidemic proportions. In September 1971, a random sample of 470 soldiers, as well as another sample of 495 soldiers who had previously been tested positive for opioids, were selected and interviewed by sociologist Lee N. Robins.

All the men had been serving in Vietnam for exactly one year, so their exposure to the country’s heroin and opium resources was the same. After a closer inspection, it became known that almost half of all army men enlisted in Vietnam had tried heroin or opium and that 20% of them had developed an addiction to them.

It may seem common knowledge that the availability of a certain drug directly correlates with its consumption. However, what surprised the research team in this particular study was that eight to 12 months after the soldiers had returned home, heroin use was uncommon, even amongst those who had previously become addicted to the drug in Vietnam. In fact, during the first year back home, only 5% of men had relapsed to addiction.

Although both experiments have their limitations when it comes to the repeatability and applications to society, they both teach us a valuable lesson: environmental factors matter and must be an undeniable aspect in prevention programmes and policies impacting drugs and crime.

Our penal system must be rehabilitative, not vindictive. Let’s not forget that a criminal conviction relating to drugs can have devastating effects upon someone’s life. It can cause personal relationships to fall apart and limit future work opportunities and further alienate those who are in desperate need of our help. This doesn’t need to be the case. Instead of stopping drug users, let’s support them instead.

5. More tax money

Legal drugs present the possibility of tremendous benefits to economies especially as a means to recover from the pandemic induced economic downturn.

Looking at this again, over the past few years, the sale of a drug like marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington have resulted in buoyant tax revenues. According to a report from Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics, cannabis sales in the country were $12.2 billion in 2019 and projected to increase to $31.1 billion by 2024.

But that’s not all, we will also be able to save vast sums of money as fewer law enforcement officers would be required and fewer court cases involving drug substances would go to trial. Legalising drugs can also create more jobs and investment opportunities.

Reform! The drug legalisation debate can be a complex one, however what is clear is that the war on drugs was an ill-advised policy that we have been pursuing for the last 80 years.

It is time we listen to experts. It is time that we understand that nations don’t live in a vacuum and global challenges require global solutions.

Drugs can bring us joy; drugs can harm us. Legalise them and give them to doctors, pharmacists and regulated retailers, not criminals.

Please contact us if you have any comments or would like us to write about potential arguments against legalising drugs.

Empower us to do more!

Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran. Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr Graphic: Ariana Yekrangi

‘Embracing genocide’: How Iranian monarchists are championing Israel’s deadly onslaught on Palestine

History will judge us, and the question will not be whether we bore direct responsibility for the actions of oppressive regimes, but whether we did all within our power to oppose them. Photo: ajatonvimma/ VJ Group Random Doctors © CC BY 2.0 Deed

Looking away from Gaza will not assuage our conscience; only action will

The end of a charade: Israel’s collapse under global condemnation

UNAMID peacekeepers prepare for night patrol exercise. Photo: Stuart Price/ UN Photo/ Flickr © CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED

Revitalising Global Engagement: The Case for a United Nations Peace Corps

On 27 January, the US, alongside key Western allies, halted funding to the UN Palestinian refugee agency following Israel's allegations linking UNRWA employees to a Hamas attack. Photo: US Embassy Tel Aviv © CC BY 2.0 DEED. Graphic: Ariana Yekrangi

‘No place for the politicisation of aid’: Why the West’s UNRWA fund cuts are nakedly political

Caravaggio's 'Fruit Basket' (c. 1599) - an oil painting on canvas, 46 cm by 64.5 cm, displayed at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Known for its vivid detail, it showcases fruit and leaves in a basket, pioneering the still life genre.

How Michelangelo’s “Fruit Basket” captures the fleeting essence of life

To be or not to be European alone: Horizons of EU expansion

Julia Hartley-Brewer's behaviour during the interview, which was unprofessional and not befitting a journalist, has led to calls for her dismissal. The incident, perceived as a display of racism and sexism, was broadcast live on TV. Photo: TalkTV/YouTube

Julia Hartley-Brewer’s racism is a common reality for brown man – I know, having experienced it firsthand

The UNSC after a vote in 2016. Photo: Rick Bajornas © UN Photo/Fllickr

Frail and Ambiguous Words: How Diplomacy Hinders Peace in Gaza

Photo: Web Summit/Flickr Composite: Ariana Yekrangi

António Guterres Named as the UN-aligned Person of the Year

Nation-Building and Indigenous Struggles: Histories, Rights and Representation

To be or not to be European alone — The Gordian Magazine

Welcome to the February issue of The Gordian Magazine. In this edition, we venture into the depths of a question that has, for centuries, puzzled and provoked: “To be or not to be European alone”. As we stand at the crossroads of history, the fabric of our collective identity is being stretched and tested by the forces of nationalism and globalisation, each tugging in its direction.

Read The Gordian for free

The Gordian Magazine is a community-supported magazine that shares YOUR revolutionary ideas in regards to human rights, animal welfare and environmental protection. Every issue contains global news, opinions and long reads accompanied by striking photography and insightful companion pieces.

We promise not to spam your inbox. Find how we use your information.

Or become a free member .

The Gordian →
Get involved →
Contact us →
The UN-aligned manifesto
As an Alternative UN
The international political party
On Facebook
On Instagram

UN-aligned uses cookies to make this website better.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

Home ›
Reviews ›
The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

Douglas Husak and Peter de Marneffe, The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against , Cambridge University Press, 2005, 204pp., $18.99 (pbk), ISBN 0521546869.

Reviewed by William Hawk, James Madison University

In the United States the production, distribution and use of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are crimes subjecting the offender to imprisonment. The Legalization of Drugs , appearing in the series "For and Against" edited by R. G. Frey for Cambridge University Press, raises the seldom-asked philosophical question of the justification, if any, of imprisoning persons for drug offenses.

Douglas Husak questions the justification for punishing persons who use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. He develops a convincing argument that imprisonment is never morally justified for drug use. Put simply, incarceration is such a harsh penalty that drug use, generally harmless to others and less harmful to the user than commonly supposed, fails to justify it. Any legal scheme that punishes drug users to achieve another worthy goal, such as creating a disincentive to future drug users, violates principles of justice.

Peter de Marneffe contends that under some circumstances society is morally justified in punishing persons who produce and distribute heroin. He argues a theoretical point that anticipated rises in drug abuse and consequent effects on young people may justify keeping heroin production and distribution illegal. According to de Marneffe's analysis, however, harsh prison penalties currently imposed on drug offenders are unjustified.

The points of discord between Husak's and de Marneffe's positions are serious but not as telling as is their implicit agreement. Current legal practices and policies which lead to lengthy incarceration of those who produce, distribute and use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not, and cannot be, morally justified. Both arguments, against imprisoning drug users and for keeping heroin production illegal, merit a broad and careful reading.

The United States has erected an enormous legal structure involving prosecution and incarceration designed to prohibit a highly pleasurable, sometimes medically indicated and personally satisfying activity, namely using marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. At the same time, other pleasure-producing drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine, though legally regulated for the purposes of consumer safety and under-age consumption, can be purchased over the counter. As a result, while the health and safety risks of cigarettes may be greater than those proven to accompany marijuana, one can buy cigarettes from a vending machine and but go to prison for smoking marijuana. A rational legal system, according to Husak, demands a convincing, but as yet not forthcoming, explanation of why one pleasurable drug subjects users to the risk of imprisonment while the other is accommodated in restaurants.

Drug prohibitionists must face the problem that any "health risk" argument used to distinguish illicit drugs and subject offenders to prison sentences runs up against the known, yet tolerated, health risks of tobacco, as well as the additional health risks associated with incarceration. "Social costs" arguments targeting heroin or cocaine runs up against the known, yet tolerated, social costs of alcohol, as well as the additional social costs of incarceration. Even if one were to accept that illicit drugs were more harmful or exacted greater social costs than tobacco and alcohol (and the empirical studies referred to in the text do not generally support this thesis), that difference proves insufficient to justify imprisoning producers, distributors or especially users of illicit drugs.

Decriminalizing Drug Use. Douglas Husak presents a very carefully argued case for decriminalizing drug use. He begins his philosophical argument by clarifying the concepts and issues involved. To advocate the legalization of drugs calls for a legal system in which the production and sale of drugs are not criminal offenses. (p. 3) Criminalization of drugs makes the use of certain drugs a criminal offense, i.e. one deserving punishment. To argue for drug decriminalization, as Husak does, is not necessarily to argue for legalization of drugs . Husak entertains, but cautiously rejects the notion of a system where production and sale of drugs is illegal while use is not a crime. De Marneffe advocates such a system.

Punishing persons by incarceration demands justification. Since the state's use of punishment is a severe tool and incarceration is by its nature "degrading, demoralizing and dangerous" (p. 29) we must be able to provide "a compelling reason … to justify the infliction of punishment… ." (p. 34) Husak finds no compelling reason for imprisoning drug users. After considering four standard justifications for punishing drug users Husak concludes that "the arguments for criminalization are not sufficiently persuasive to justify the infliction of punishment."

Reasons to Criminalize Drug Use . 1) Drug users, it is claimed, should be punished in order to protect the health and well being of citizens . No doubt states are justified in protecting the health and well being of citizens. But does putting drug users in prison contribute to this worthy goal? Certainly not for those imprisoned. For those who might be deterred from using drugs the question is whether the drugs from which they are deterred by the threat of imprisonment actually pose a health risk. For one, Husak quotes research showing that currently illicit drugs do not obviously pose a greater health threat than alcohol or tobacco. For another, he quotes a statistic showing that approximately four times as many persons die annually from using prescribed medicines than die from using illegal drugs. In addition, one-fourth of all pack-a-day smokers lose ten to fifteen years of their lives but no one would entertain the idea of incarcerating smokers to further their health interests or in order to prevent non-smokers from beginning. In sum, Husak accepts that drug use poses health risks but contends that the risks are not greater than others that are socially accepted. Even if they were greater, imprisonment does not reduce, but compounds the health risks for prisoners.

2) Punishing drug users protects children . Husak here responds to de Marneffe's essay which focuses on potential drug abuse and promotes the welfare of children as a justification for keeping drug production and sale illegal. Husak finds punishing adolescent users a peculiar way to protect them. To punish one drug-using adolescent in order to prevent a non-using adolescent from using drugs is ineffective and also violates justice. Punishing adult users so that youth do not begin using drugs and do not suffer from neglect -- which is de Marneffe's position -- is not likely to prevent adolescents from becoming drug users, and even if it did, one would have to show that the harm prevented to the youth justifies imprisoning adults. Husak contends that punishing adults or youth, far from protecting youth, puts them at greater risk.

3) Some, e.g. former New York City mayor Guiliani, argue that punishing drug use prevents crime . Husak, conceding a connection between drug use and crime, turns the argument upside-down, showing how punishment increases rather than decreases crime. For one, criminalization of drugs forces the drug industry to settle disputes extra-legally. Secondly, drug decriminalization would likely lower drug costs thereby reducing economic crimes. Thirdly, to those who contend that illicit drugs may increase violence and aggression Husak responds that: a) empirical evidence does not support marijuana or heroin as causes of violence and b) empirical evidence does support alcohol, which is decriminalized, as leading to violence. Husak concludes "if we propose to ban those drugs that are implicated in criminal behavior, no drug would be a better candidate for criminalization than alcohol." (p. 70) Finally, punishing drug users likely increases crime rates since those imprisoned for drug use are released with greater tendencies and skills for future criminal activity.

4) Drug use ought to be punished because using drugs is immoral . In addition to standard philosophical objections to legal moralism, Husak contends that there is no good reason to think that recreational drug use is immoral. Drug use violates no rights. Other recreationally used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are not immoral. The only accounts according to which drug use is immoral are religiously based and generally not shared in the citizenry. Husak argues that legal moralism fails, and with it the attempts to justify imprisoning drug users because of health and well-being, protecting children, or reducing crime. Husak concludes, "If I am correct, prohibitionists are more clearly guilty of immorality than their opponents. The wrongfulness of recreational drug use, if it exists at all, pales against the immorality of punishing drug users." (p. 82)

Reasons to Decriminalize Drug Use. Husak's positive case for decriminalizing drug use begins with acknowledgement that drug use is or may be highly pleasurable. In addition, some drugs aid relaxation, others increase energy and some promote spiritual enlightenment or literary and artistic creativity. The simple fun and euphoria attendant to drug use should count for permitting it.

The fact that criminalization of drug use proves to be counter-productive provides Husak a set of final substantial reasons for decriminalizing use. Criminalizing drugs proves counter-productive along several different lines: 1) criminalization is aimed and selectively enforced against minorities, 2) public health risks increase because drugs are dealt on the street, 3) foreign policy is negatively affected by corrupt governments being supported solely because they support anti-drug policies, 4) a frank and open discussion about drug policy is impossible in the United States, 5) civil liberties are eroded by drug enforcement, 6) some government corruption stems from drug payoffs and 7) criminalization costs tens of billions of dollars per year.

Douglas Husak provides the conceptual clarity needed to work one's way through the various debates surrounding drug use and the law. He establishes a high threshold that must be met in order to justify the state's incarcerating someone. Having laid this groundwork Husak demonstrates that purported justifications for drug criminalization fail and that good reasons for decriminalizing drug use prevail. For persons who worry about what drug decriminalization means for children, Husak counsels that there is more to fear from prosecution and conviction of youth for using drugs than there is to fear from the drugs themselves.

Against Legalizing Drug Production and Distribution. Peter de Marneffe offers an argument against drug legalization . The argument itself is simple. If drugs are legalized, there will be more drug abuse. If there is more drug abuse that is bad. Drug abuse is sufficiently bad to justify making drug production and distribution illegal. Therefore, drugs should not be legalized. The weight of this argument is carried by the claim that the badness of drug abuse is sufficient to justify making drug production and sale illegal.

De Marneffe centers his argument on heroin. Heroin, he contends, is highly pleasurable but sharply depresses motivation to achieve worthwhile goals and meet responsibilities. Accordingly, children in an environment where heroin is legal will be subjected to neglect by heroin using parents and, if they themselves use heroin, they will be harmed by diminished motivation for achievement for the remainder of their lives. It is this later harm to the ambition and motivation of young people that, according to de Marneffe, justifies criminalizing heroin production and sale. As he puts it:

… the risk of lost opportunities that some individuals would bear as the result of heroin legalization justifies the risks of criminal liability and other burdens that heroin prohibition imposes on other individuals. The legalization of heroin would create a social environment -- call it the legalization environment -- in which some children would be at a substantially higher risk of irresponsible heroin abuse by their parents and in which some adolescents would be at a substantially higher risk of self-destructive heroin abuse. (p. 124)

Are the liberties of individual adult drug producers, distributors and users sacrificed? Yes, but this may be justified by de Marneffe's "burdens principle." According to the burdens principle, "the government violates a person's moral rights in adopting a policy that limits her liberty if and only if in adopting this policy the government imposes a burden on her that is substantially worse than the worst burden anyone would bear in the absence of this policy." (p. 159) According to this, de Marneffe claims that burdens on drug vendors or users may be justified by the prevention of harms to a particular individual or individuals. As he puts it:

What I claim in favor of heroin prohibition is that the reasons of at least one person to prefer her situation in a prohibition environment outweigh everyone else's reasons to prefer his or her situation in a legalization environment, assuming that the penalties are gradual and proportionate and other relevant conditions are met. (p. 161)

According to this view, the objective interest of a single adolescent in not losing ambition, motivation and drive justifies the imposition of burdens on other youth and adults who would prefer using drugs. Although Johnny might choose heroin use, his objective interest is for future motivation and ambition that is not harmed by heroin use.

De Marneffe's "burdens principle" seems to hold the whole society hostage to the objective liberty interests of one individual. Were this principle applied to drug producers or distributors who faced imprisonment it seems that imprisonment could not be justified. I suspect a concern for consistency here gives de Marneffe reason to make drug production and distribution illegal but without attaching harsh prison sentences for offenders. He advocates an environment where drugs are not legal, in order to protect youth against both abuse and their own choices that may cause them to become unmotivated, but recognizes that prison sentences are unjustified as a way to support such a system.

In The Legalization of Drugs the reader gets two interesting arguments. Douglas Husak makes a compelling case against punishing drug users. His position amounts to drug decriminalization with skepticism toward making drug production and sale illegal. On the other side, Peter de Marneffe justifies making drug production and sale illegal based upon the diminishment of future interests of young people. De Marneffe introduces a "burdens principle" which is likely much too strong a commitment to individual interests than could ever be realized in a civil society. In both instances, the reader is treated to arguments that effectively undermine current drug policy. The book provides philosophical argumentation that should stimulate a societal conversation about the justifiability of current drug laws.

Against the Legalization of Drugs Essay

The United States is currently involved in a war on drugs and to stop the movement of illegal narcotics into the country. It is also aimed at educating the general public on their dangers. This is a great effort to halt its initial use among the American general public. However, this war on drugs is very costly, and many of the citizens’ tax dollars have been used in its funding. The process is also prolonged and usually marked with gradual improvements and gains. President Bush made the plan famous in 1989, and some economists and politicians have since become so dissatisfied because the process is entirely slow.

Economists and politicians have, hence, offered an alternative to this war on the use of narcotics. They have recommended the legalization of all drugs that are illicit at the moment. They have stated several explanations and ideas on why the legalization of drugs is good. Among the reasons, they argue that the legalization of drugs will significantly reduce the country’s rate of crime, and it will take the profit out of drugs and dispose of the black market. The ideas are, however, flawed and incorrect to some extent. And due to their unsound nature, it is conceded that the illegal narcotic should never be made legal. Narcotics’ legalization is one of the broadest topics which have attracted many debates from various quarters. With all the preceding information, it is nearly impossible to legalize illegal drugs and an impractical solution to the US ‘ drug menace. The main arguments presented in this reading have identified the flaws associated with the arguments for the legalization of drugs.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, February 23). Against the Legalization of Drugs. https://ivypanda.com/essays/against-the-legalization-of-drugs/

"Against the Legalization of Drugs." IvyPanda , 23 Feb. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/against-the-legalization-of-drugs/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Against the Legalization of Drugs'. 23 February.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Against the Legalization of Drugs." February 23, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/against-the-legalization-of-drugs/.

1. IvyPanda . "Against the Legalization of Drugs." February 23, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/against-the-legalization-of-drugs/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Against the Legalization of Drugs." February 23, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/against-the-legalization-of-drugs/.

Reasons to Legalize Prostitution
Narcotic Drugs Use and Legalization in the UAE
7 Reasons Why America Should Legalize Prostitution
Gay Marriages: Why Not Legalize Them?
Is Genetic Engineering an Environmentally Sound Way to Increase Food Production?
Should the Canadian Government Legalize Prostitution?
“The Menace of Multiculturalism" by McKenzie Critique
Marijuana: To Legalize or Not to Legalize?
Should Canada legalize prostitution?
A Call to Legalize Abortion
Preventing Substance Misuse in Young Adults
Social Media Efficiency in Decreasing Youth Alcohol Consumption
Valium and Heroin Addiction: Compare and Contrast
Substance Use Disorders Prevention in Adolescents
The Main Problems of Alcoholism

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Law

Argumentative Essay On Debate Over Legalization Of Drugs

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Law , Drugs , Taxes , Criminal Justice , Marijuana , Marketing , Medicine , Health

Words: 1100

Published: 12/10/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

The legalization of drugs has been a very controversial case for decades, with strong arguments on either side. While there has been few who argue that harder drugs like cocaine and heroin should remain illegal, the same is not true with marijuana. For most of the 20th century and beyond, it has been illegal in the United States and other countries, turning its sale and usage into a vast underground market that has gone untapped by any professional outlet. Some say that it is a harmful, addictive drug that leads to health detriments down the line for those who use it. However, there are others who claim that it is perfectly safe, not addictive, and could be an incredible source of income for a legitimate economy. The legalization of marijuana has the potential to create an incredible revenue stream of a highly demanded product that is safe to use. In this argumentative essay, the pros and cons of drug legalization, focusing on marijuana will be explored and discussed.

First, marijuana has not been shown or verified to have any detrimental effects on the human body. Also, marijuana has a substantial history of medical and clinical applications for people with certain conditions. Medical marijuana is often used as an anesthetic in a large number of countries all around the world (Koch, 2006). Glaucoma is another condition in which medical marijuana is distributed to patients, as it helps alleviate the symptoms and increase comfort in the person suffering, including lowering eye pressure (Southall, 2010). Fifteen states, as well as the District of Columbia, currently allow medical marijuana to be sold and prescribed to its citizens to this day (New York Times, 2011). Ostensibly, medical marijuana’s purpose is to relieve pain, nausea, and loss of appetite in those patients who have debilitating conditions, such as cancer or AIDS.

Marijuana, if legalized, could bring in substantial tax revenue for state and federal governments, a blessing in today’s economically charged climate. If the recently downturned Proposition 19 had passed in California, nearly $1.4 billion in tax revenue would have been earned by the state (New York Times, 2011). This could have been used for prison and law enforcement budget enhancements, which is very important in a time when many police departments are understaffed, and prisons are overcrowded. There is a substantial demand for marijuana, mostly due to its illegal nature; the tapping of this untouched market is rife with possibility, as the demand would remain, but government could tax the purchase of marijuana purchasing, particularly for medical purposes (Nadelman, 2006).

This could help budget deficits immensely; Berkeley’s major, Tom Bates, requested a tax increase on marijuana dispensaries that would add a substantial amount of revenue to the city budget, closing a $16.2 million gap in funding that is in desperate need of filling (Palmeri and Marois, 2010). Other cities are experiencing similar benefits by taxing its medical marijuana; Denver generates approximately $2 million a year from marijuana taxes on its 256 dispensaries, and California is seeking to increase taxes in order to have the same results in its large medical marijuana market.

There are many opponents to marijuana legalization, their reasoning being primarily health-based. First, they claim that marijuana is addictive, and that it can also act as a gateway drug to harder drugs, such as cocaine or heroin. It is implied that marijuana usage blocks neurons and replaces neurotransmitter chemicals, potentially causing permanent brain damage (Koch, 2006). Also, opponents state that marijuana use is not medically sound, and that there are no real measurable results found in people who take it to address medical conditions (Dixie and Bensinger, 2010). Another opponent believes that the case for medical marijuana is merely a smokescreen for allowing recreational use to run rampant, and to make an easier case for the total legalization of the drug. They claim that gang use and crime would increase as a result of the legalization of marijuana, and that youth would abuse it to a debilitating degree (New York Times, 2011). There are even concerns among many pro-marijuana advocates that legalization would drive up prices, despite their desires for greater legitimacy for cannabis – the loss of romanticism related to pot smoking might make the number of people who smoke decrease if it is legalized. (Palmeri and Marois, 2010).

These opinions could not be further from the truth. Experiments performed on the use of marijuana have found only positive results, and in some cases has helped people immensely with a variety of symptoms, including nausea from cancer treatments (Koch, 2006). Also, the demand for marijuana is much greater than anticipated by many; nearly 46% of people in a 2010 Gallup poll stated that they would like marijuana to be legal. In a sample of 20 respondents, when asked about their opinion on marijuana legalization, 40% said they would prefer legalization, while 60% desired varying degrees of restriction in its legality. According to this study, males are far more likely to pull for marijuana legalization than women, regardless of actual experience with the drug.

The debate regarding marijuana legalization is an impassioned and multifaceted one; both sides carry their own unique points, which are backed by logic and some degree of research. However, when the evidence is examined fully, and the advantages and disadvantages are weighed, the clear frontrunner is the case for legalization of marijuana. Any perceived negative health effects are so inconsequential as to be unimportant, and the sheer amount of revenue that could be earned from taxed, legal marijuana is sufficient to allow its legalization. Also, the positive health effects that marijuana provides people from a medical context (anesthesia and the like) are far too widespread to be ignored. With this in mind, legalizing medical marijuana would be a prudent, profitable and prescient choice.

Works Cited

Bensinger, Peter and Dixie, Dora (1992). Marijuana is Bad Medicine, Bad Policy. USA Today. Koch, Kathy. (2006). “Medical Marijuana. Should doctors be able to prescribe the drug?” The Researcher, 9, (31), CQ Press, 2006. Nadelmann, Ethan (2004). "An End To Marijuana Prohibition" National Review. New York Times. (2011). "Marijuana and Medical Marijuana - The New York Times." Times Topics. Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html?sc p=1&sq=legalize%20marijuana&st=cse. Palmieri, Christopher, and Michael Marois. (2010). "The Latest Fiscal Buzz? Medical Marijuana - BusinessWeek." Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188035394752.htm. Southall, Ashley. (2011). “Washington D.C. Approves Medical Use of Marijuana.” The New York Times 17.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 904

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Language learning research proposals, alter college essays, cbt college essays, firmicutes college essays, chagas college essays, buettner college essays, sybase essays, hargrove essays, pulpy essays, inter press service essays, ludovico essays, nosema essays, lgbt community essays, poverty and crime essays, christopher wool essays, damien hirst essays, cy twombly essays, lucio fontana essays, cubism essays, franz kline essays, mark rothko essays, willem de kooning essays, corfu essays, low down essays, wharton essays, striatum essays, excitatory essays, parvalbumin essays, allegations essays, research summary and ethical considerations guidelines research paper example, example of essay on apple care warranty, good theory application essay example, good critical thinking on grace, free career research game developer research paper sample, good example of winter bones movie review, example of essay on occupations of interest paper, free looking into the effects and the consequences of the san francisco earthquake research paper example, free essay on nelson mandela, what would have made an icon like this controversial in eighth and ninth century byzantium essay samples, example of advanced practice leadership paper essay, free platos divided line and the true good essay example, good example of essay on 50 039 000 x 7 98, neno district case study example.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

9 facts about americans and marijuana.

People smell a cannabis plant on April 20, 2023, at Washington Square Park in New York City. (Leonardo Munoz/VIEWpress)

The use and possession of marijuana is illegal under U.S. federal law, but about three-quarters of states have legalized the drug for medical or recreational purposes. The changing legal landscape has coincided with a decades-long rise in public support for legalization, which a majority of Americans now favor.

Here are nine facts about Americans’ views of and experiences with marijuana, based on Pew Research Center surveys and other sources.

As more states legalize marijuana, Pew Research Center looked at Americans’ opinions on legalization and how these views have changed over time.

Data comes from surveys by the Center, Gallup , and the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Information about the jurisdictions where marijuana is legal at the state level comes from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws .

More information about the Center surveys cited in the analysis, including the questions asked and their methodologies, can be found at the links in the text.

Around nine-in-ten Americans say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a January 2024 Pew Research Center survey . An overwhelming majority of U.S. adults (88%) say either that marijuana should be legal for medical use only (32%) or that it should be legal for medical and recreational use (57%). Just 11% say the drug should not be legal in any form. These views have held relatively steady over the past five years.

A pie chart showing that only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults say marijuana should not be legal at all.

Views on marijuana legalization differ widely by age, political party, and race and ethnicity, the January survey shows.

A horizontal stacked bar chart showing that views about legalizing marijuana differ by race and ethnicity, age and partisanship.

While small shares across demographic groups say marijuana should not be legal at all, those least likely to favor it for both medical and recreational use include:

Older adults: 31% of adults ages 75 and older support marijuana legalization for medical and recreational purposes, compared with half of those ages 65 to 74, the next youngest age category. By contrast, 71% of adults under 30 support legalization for both uses.
Republicans and GOP-leaning independents: 42% of Republicans favor legalizing marijuana for both uses, compared with 72% of Democrats and Democratic leaners. Ideological differences exist as well: Within both parties, those who are more conservative are less likely to support legalization.
Hispanic and Asian Americans: 45% in each group support legalizing the drug for medical and recreational use. Larger shares of Black (65%) and White (59%) adults hold this view.

Support for marijuana legalization has increased dramatically over the last two decades. In addition to asking specifically about medical and recreational use of the drug, both the Center and Gallup have asked Americans about legalizing marijuana use in a general way. Gallup asked this question most recently, in 2023. That year, 70% of adults expressed support for legalization, more than double the share who said they favored it in 2000.

A line chart showing that U.S. public opinion on legalizing marijuana, 1969-2023.

Half of U.S. adults (50.3%) say they have ever used marijuana, according to the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health . That is a smaller share than the 84.1% who say they have ever consumed alcohol and the 64.8% who have ever used tobacco products or vaped nicotine.

While many Americans say they have used marijuana in their lifetime, far fewer are current users, according to the same survey. In 2022, 23.0% of adults said they had used the drug in the past year, while 15.9% said they had used it in the past month.

While many Americans say legalizing recreational marijuana has economic and criminal justice benefits, views on these and other impacts vary, the Center’s January survey shows.

Economic benefits: About half of adults (52%) say that legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies, while 17% say it is bad. Another 29% say it has no impact.

A horizontal stacked bar chart showing how Americans view the effects of legalizing recreational marijuana.

Criminal justice system fairness: 42% of Americans say legalizing marijuana for recreational use makes the criminal justice system fairer, compared with 18% who say it makes the system less fair. About four-in-ten (38%) say it has no impact.
Use of other drugs: 27% say this policy decreases the use of other drugs like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine, and 29% say it increases it. But the largest share (42%) say it has no effect on other drug use.
Community safety: 21% say recreational legalization makes communities safer and 34% say it makes them less safe. Another 44% say it doesn’t impact safety.

Democrats and adults under 50 are more likely than Republicans and those in older age groups to say legalizing marijuana has positive impacts in each of these areas.

Most Americans support easing penalties for people with marijuana convictions, an October 2021 Center survey found . Two-thirds of adults say they favor releasing people from prison who are being held for marijuana-related offenses only, including 41% who strongly favor this. And 61% support removing or expunging marijuana-related offenses from people’s criminal records.

Younger adults, Democrats and Black Americans are especially likely to support these changes. For instance, 74% of Black adults favor releasing people from prison who are being held only for marijuana-related offenses, and just as many favor removing or expunging marijuana-related offenses from criminal records.

Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have legalized small amounts of marijuana for both medical and recreational use as of March 2024, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), an advocacy group that tracks state-level legislation on the issue. Another 14 states have legalized the drug for medical use only.

A map of the U.S. showing that nearly half of states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

Of the remaining 12 states, all allow limited access to products such as CBD oil that contain little to no THC – the main psychoactive substance in cannabis. And 26 states overall have at least partially decriminalized recreational marijuana use , as has the District of Columbia.

In addition to 24 states and D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands , Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands have legalized marijuana for medical and recreational use.

More than half of Americans (54%) live in a state where both recreational and medical marijuana are legal, and 74% live in a state where it’s legal either for both purposes or medical use only, according to a February Center analysis of data from the Census Bureau and other outside sources. This analysis looked at state-level legislation in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to pass legislation legalizing recreational marijuana.

About eight-in-ten Americans (79%) live in a county with at least one cannabis dispensary, according to the February analysis. There are nearly 15,000 marijuana dispensaries nationwide, and 76% are in states (including D.C.) where recreational use is legal. Another 23% are in medical marijuana-only states, and 1% are in states that have made legal allowances for low-percentage THC or CBD-only products.

The states with the largest number of dispensaries include California, Oklahoma, Florida, Colorado and Michigan.

A map of the U.S. showing that cannabis dispensaries are common along the coasts and in a few specific states.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 26, 2021, and updated April 13, 2023.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use

Religious americans are less likely to endorse legal marijuana for recreational use, four-in-ten u.s. drug arrests in 2018 were for marijuana offenses – mostly possession, two-thirds of americans support marijuana legalization, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

IMAGES

Legalizing Drugs
The Arguments For And Against Marijuana Legalization In The U.S
Legalizing Drugs: Crime Stopper or Social Risk? by Margaret J. Goldstein
Essay on drug addiction in 150 words
Legalizing Drugs: Crime Stopper or Social
≫ The War on Drugs Must Be Ended and Replaced Free Essay Sample on

VIDEO

Legalizing Drugs A Complex Debate #podcast #jre
Legalizing recreational drugs: Agree or Disagree? #LegalizeRecreationalDrugs #CrimeReductionDebate
CNN Official Interview: Ron Paul enters 2012 presidential race
The Impact of Legalizing Drugs in #Portland: Addressing the #Fentanyl Crisis #CurrentEvents
💊The REAL Reason Why They’re Legalizing Drugs #faith #truth #spiritual
Pourquoi légaliser le cannabis ?

COMMENTS

Should drugs be legalized?
Essay. Incensed by the steadily growing number of deaths, crime and corruption created by illicit drug trade and use in the recent years, a number of persons drawn from both the government and the private sector have been calling for the legalization of drugs to curb the problems associated with the abuse and trade in drugs such as cocaine ...
Legalization Of Drugs: [Essay Example], 620 words GradesFixer
Legalization of Drugs. The issue of drug legalization has been a contentious topic for many years, with proponents arguing that it would reduce crime rates and generate tax revenue, while opponents maintain that it would lead to increased drug use and societal harm. This essay will critically analyze both sides of the debate, exploring the ...
Drugs Legalization Essay
The Legalization Of Drug Legalization. Drug decriminalization is opposed by the majority of Americans. Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement are against it, as are many political leaders. However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the use of drugs, are making headlines. They are influencing legislation and ...
Should the United States Decriminalize the Possession of Drugs?
The citizens of Washington, D.C., voted to decriminalize psilocybin, the organic compound active in psychedelic mushrooms. Oregon voters approved two drug-related initiatives. One decriminalized ...
Drug Legalization?: Time for a real debate
Time for a real debate. Whether Bill Clinton "inhaled" when trying marijuana as a college student was about the closest the last presidential campaign came to addressing the drug issue. The ...
The World's View on Drugs Is Changing. Which Side Are You On?
Produced by 'The Argument'. Medical marijuana is now legal in more than half of the country. The cities of Denver, Seattle, Washington and Oakland, Calif., have also decriminalized psilocybin ...
"Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Essay by Bennett Essay
Essay by Bennett - 294 Words | Essay Example. "Should Drugs Be Legalized?". Essay by Bennett Essay. As the instructions state, refuting an argument signifies proving it wrong, while rebutting an argument suggests attacking it with an alternate point of view. The first argument discusses whether allowing open access to drugs will eventually ...
Drug Legalization and Decriminalization Beliefs Among Substance-Using
This population may have unique beliefs about legalization and/or decriminalization of a drug - either their drug of choice, or illicit drugs more broadly. The direct experience of using a drug might predispose a person to support more ready availability of that drug or, conversely, might make a person more cautious about decreasing barriers to ...
5 Benefits of Legalising Drugs That May Change Your Perspective
Instead of stopping drug users, let's support them instead. 5. More tax money. Legal drugs present the possibility of tremendous benefits to economies especially as a means to recover from the pandemic induced economic downturn.
Phil Paper
Now addressing the benefits of legalizing drugs, there are key points that should be taken into consideration. Legalizing drugs can help the economy tremendously. As said in an paper by Peter De Marreffee "If drugs are legalized the government can tax drugs the way it taxes alcohol and tobacco and thereby raise needed revenue." (Marneffe, 215).
The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against
The Legalization of Drugs, ... Husak here responds to de Marneffe's essay which focuses on potential drug abuse and promotes the welfare of children as a justification for keeping drug production and sale illegal. Husak finds punishing adolescent users a peculiar way to protect them. To punish one drug-using adolescent in order to prevent a non ...
Discussion: Legalizing Drugs of Abuse Essay
Discussion: Legalizing Drugs of Abuse Essay. The debate on legalizing drugs of abuse, such as Marijuana and Cocaine, has persisted for many years. Informed by a steadily increasing number of deaths and crimes related to drugs, people from both the government and private sector have been advocating for the legalization of these substance of abuse.
Pro-Legalization of Drugs Essay examples
Legalizing Drugs Essay. Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness ...
The legalization of drugs
Gore Vidal, supporter of legalization and author of the essay "Drugs," states that all drugs should be made available and sold at a cost (Vidal, 355). All of this may be true and helpful in a sense for a short while, but looking towards the long run many other aspects also need to be put into consideration. Aspects include increases in ...
Argumentative Essay On Legalization Of Drugs
Argumentative Essay On Legalization Of Drugs. 1468 Words6 Pages. In recent years, one of the worldwide trending topics has been the issue of whether all drugs should be legalised or not. There are advantages and disadvantages to the issue of legalising drugs that cannot be ignored. The following essay will discuss in detail all the positive ...
Essay on Legalizing Drugs
Legalizing Drugs Essay. Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness ...
Essay 3
Essay 3 The legalization of drugs/decriminalization of drugs has been a hot topic for the past several years. Especially with the legalization of marijuana in a few states, Colorado and Washington State being the first, the debate against and for the legalization of drugs is more present than ever. I will present arguments for drug ...
Legalizing Drugs Essay
Legalizing Drugs Essay. Legalizing Drugs Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue.
Legalize Drugs Argumentative Essay Model Sample
Legalize Drugs: Exemplar Argumentative Essay To Follow. Type of paper: Argumentative Essay. Topic: Drugs, Drug, Law, Crime, Criminal Justice, Legalization, Social Issues, Violence. Pages: 6. Words: 1600. Published: 03/08/2023. ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS. Legalization of drugs is a topic that continues to be hotly debated as a possible solution to ...
Should Drugs Be Legalized Essay
Legalization will always come with a risk in health and threat to society. Decriminalization could lead to an increase drug users and deaths by overdosing without seeking proper treatment. The danger to youth while alcohol and marijuana are legal, could also give an opportunity to experiment and try illegal drugs.
Persuasive Essay About Legalizing Drugs
Persuasive Essay About Legalizing Drugs. Legalizing drugs has been a hot debate topic since the human mind has been effected by outsider chemicals and the topic still lingers. Today; from almost every political view, ethical group, social class, race, gender and age, arguments are thrown out there whether supporting or denouncing the war on drugs.
Legalization Of Drugs Essay
Legalization Of Drugs Essay. The process of legalizing drugs is a very long and touchy subject. Different people believe in many different ideas or thought of why drugs should become legal in their country or state. Society believes that drugs can be used for many purposes which are both good and bad. These beliefs or opinions are put to the ...
Against the Legalization of Drugs
Against the Legalization of Drugs Essay. Exclusively available on IvyPanda. The United States is currently involved in a war on drugs and to stop the movement of illegal narcotics into the country. It is also aimed at educating the general public on their dangers. This is a great effort to halt its initial use among the American general public.
Argumentative Essay On Debate Over Legalization Of Drugs
The legalization of marijuana has the potential to create an incredible revenue stream of a highly demanded product that is safe to use. In this argumentative essay, the pros and cons of drug legalization, focusing on marijuana will be explored and discussed. First, marijuana has not been shown or verified to have any detrimental effects on the ...
9 facts about Americans and marijuana
While many Americans say they have used marijuana in their lifetime, far fewer are current users, according to the same survey. In 2022, 23.0% of adults said they had used the drug in the past year, while 15.9% said they had used it in the past month. While many Americans say legalizing recreational marijuana has economic and criminal justice ...