Legalization Of Drugs Analysis

In the "Case of Legalization of Drugs" by Marion Defeis, it is argued that the present (as of 1995) drug policy and drug war have failed. The drug law at the time was causing an imbalance in the prison population. Most of the people imprisoned for drug-related crime are ethnic minorities. Drugs, marked money, and tooling tools were planted to arrest. Defeis knew the problem and unfairness of drug war as pastor of Leica Island. Defeis will look at the current state of war, clarify all the problems concerning narcotics, and explain how it affects and harm other countries such as Colombia. She explained that in Colombia, thousands of people died for drug trafficking. She refers to one attempted vision to delay drug trafficking. This is reducing …show more content…
He insists that people's imprisonment for drug crime does not affect trade. Drag-on-the-war will simply amplify the price of drag-dealers. Finkelman argues that the supply is high when demand is high, causing the drug trade in the United States and destroying the country producing drugs by merely purchasing large amounts of drugs. Finkelman uses marijuana as an example to mention the benefits of drug legality. He points out that if addicts are legal, they can receive treatment more openly and easily. The government can earn income by obtaining tax revenue through sales of marijuana. The government can regulate the contents of the medicine. Finkelman insists that incidental damage to drug war should be stopped by drug legalization and should be avoided. Since Paul Finkelman's article is only 2 years old, what he is discussing is still fully related. He describes similar statements as Levinson about the benefits of user legalization. Using money for the prevention and treatment of addiction can be spent instead of spending money on addicts' imprisonment. His approach is very simple and there are lots of legitimization benefits. Finkelman also discusses the incidental damage of bans in other countries that supply drugs, as Defeis did in her …show more content…
He thinks that legalization is "a leap to an unknown and potentially dangerous watershed." His article is a reply to Alex Wodak, he responds to the previous article he wrote, which also opposed legalization of drugs. Weatherburn recognizes banned costs, but we believe that its merits are higher than cost. He says that 'drug war against war' is not cost effective, but other 'wars' on crime are also cost inefficient. His idea is that something is not cost-effective to keep people safe. Weatherburn's article is the latest of the four, so it may be helpful to compare old articles. The policies and issues raised in this article are most relevant. This is the only article I have chosen so far and insists on the legitimization of the drug altogether. This argument will be difficult to disprove, as the argument that war of medicine will raise prices is a debate that I am emphasizing. Another factor in legalization, if you want to use this argument as my objection, you must surpass the fact that medicine cheaper by