Blueprint for Regulation, Drug Abuse and Misuse - Essay Example

Critically assess Transform’s ment that their ‘Blueprint for Regulation’ (2009 demonstrates that moving to the legal regulation of drugs is not an unthinkable, politically impossible step in the dark, but a sensible, pragmatic approach Introduction Many people, including government officials and regulators have come to understand that prohibiting drugs has failed in so many ways. However, a significant issue in relation to drug law reform has related to a general fear of what is not actually known. The book, ‘After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation’ has secured answers through specific regulations for different kinds of prohibited drugs. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation, or Transform in short, has suggested that legal regulation is not unthinkable or political impossible, instead, it is a sensible “pragmatic approach to control drug production, supply, and use”. This paper shall now critically assess this statement determining its merits as well as demerits, arguments and proof in favour of or against it. This paper shall seek to establish whether or not the conditions are generally right for the legal regulation of drug production, its supply and use. Body Drug abuse and misuse Drug abuse has become a social, health, and legal issue for the world. In the UK, its impact has cost the country about 10 billion to 16 billion pounds yearly and the worldwide burden is even more significant. At present, the measures seeking to manage drug abuse include the interdiction of supply as well as treatment1. These measures call for clarity of risks which drug abuse can cause. In the UK, reactions to policies on drug possession and supply are based on the categorization of drugs, and education as well as healthcare provisions are based on the actual actions and impact of known drugs2. Other states and organizations include drug categorization systems which are based on drug risks and impact. Still, the elements by which the risks are established are sometimes not indicated and where known by the public, it may sometimes not be clearly defined3. Such ambiguity is based on the significant complications in the elements which have considered harm and scientific evidence is not sufficient in some areas, but still being generally unpredictable. There are three general harms which can be deduced from drug abuse – physical harm, drug inducing independence, and the impact of drugs on families and society4. The physical impact of the drugs includes damage to the organs, with increased toxicity to the system. With chronic use, it can cause illness and eventually, death5. Dependence can also come about due to drug misuse and it can lead to organ damage as well as eventual death with immediate symptoms of dependence including intense craving as well as withdrawal symptoms. Psychological dependence can also be noted with the chronic use of drugs6. Socially, it can damage the user’s family and work life and can lead to intense intoxication which can compromise judgment7. Violence can sometimes be seen among chronic drug users especially with the use of drugs which can reduce their inhibitions and compromise their judgment8. Thousands of crimes have been attributed to drug use and abuse and this has led authorities to impose strict regulations on its use, distribution, and manufacturing. This would be part of the reason why Transform has highlighted the value of imposing legal regulations on drugs. They claim that it would serve the interests of the people more, especially in the light of the failure of current policies and laws on drug use and distribution. Arguments in favour of the legal regulation of drugs Legal regulation in this case relates to the goal of the process in making something illegal legal. The goals refer to the controls and impositions which would be set forth in terms of the production, use, and supply of drugs as soon as it is made legal9. Also, decriminalization mostly relates to the elimination of criminal liabilities in personal drug possession including production and supply being unlawful. It is also important to understand the motives of those who favour legal regulation10. Transform, alongside other supporters or reform suggest that drug policies must be able to protect the young and vulnerable population, decrease crime rates, improve the health of individuals, ensure development as well as security, ensure good value for money, and promote human rights. Experiences in relation to drugs in the past few decades indicate how prohibition is unable to secure such goals11. Legal regulation is able to secure more significant goals in relation to drug use and abuse. In the level of prescription, it is understood that the high-risk drugs are indicated for individuals who are drug dependent12. Other elements of regulation can be included alongside elements on drug use which has to be carried out with medical supervision. For pharmacies, licenses medical professionals are considered as guardians to different drugs, most especially the highly regulated drugs13. Stricter controls in dispensing, and the licensing of these pharmacists has to be recognized. With licenses sales, the low-risk drugs can be evaluated by regulatory authorities, applying license regulations with specifications indicated for promotion and advertisement14. No sales can be made to minors, and non-medical conditions are just some of the conditions which have to be set forth in order to ensure legal regulation of drugs. Another concern for legal regulation must include the licensed premises including pubs, bars, or coffee shops premises can sell lower-risk drugs for on-site consumption, subject to strict as these areas sell drugs and these establishments have to be legally regulated alongside policy making for consumer behaviour15. Unlicensed sales have also been noted as part of the concerns for legal regulation. Drugs which are of lower risk including coffee or tea do not have much need for licenses, and regulation is needed in order to provide sufficient production application including trade standards, alongside adequate labelling and product descriptions indicated16. These regulations are also present and they exist in different forms in different parts of the world. They are also being applied in order to control the legal distribution of various medications and drugs. The kind of regulation which Transform indicates is therefore related to a middle-ground between absolute prohibition and a legal and commercial drug market17. The legal regulation of drugs cannot simply be set forth without the audience being identified and common goals indicated. In the application of materials, it is crucial to first consider who the audience is, what one wants done with them, what contents and the tone that has to be used18. In considering these issues, it is possible to consider answers which can convince the audience. It is also important to consider common elements with opponents in order to establish how individuals all seek similar goals in relation to drug policies19. In securing shared goals, a valuable initial point where major issues can be secured and is also therefore possible for exploration. This would favour discussions in terms of present policies and whether it actually accomplishes the goals and to consider the discussions in relation to different approaches which can ensure good outcomes20. As an overall consideration, it is possible to agree that parties involved want to control drugs. Protecting and improving public health Criminalisation does not actually sufficiently prevent people from using the drugs, and legal regulation implies that governments can actually limit availability and guarantee that drugs are clean with their potency known. This would relate to the goal of ensuring that consumers actually know what medicine they are taking and that they are sufficiently informed about the health risks arising from drug use and how to reduce such risks21. In short, it is important to manage drugs as they can bring about harmful effects. At most times, the illegal use of drugs may not cause much problem, however, in general, most drug intake and use implies the presence of risks, and regardless of the risks a drug carried, such risks can be increased when it is caused by those who profit or gain criminally from its use22. In fact, prohibition causes the market into the use of products which have bigger risks, including drugs like cocaine, where it can also involve the use of products whose strength is not actually known and can lead to high-risk actions, which can also lead to consumption by users under high-risk conditions23. The UNODC has expressed that the increased costs in law enforcement financial allocations have also decreased allocations for public health actions including the reduction of harm, treatment, prevention. As a result, more harm can be caused to other people, including high-risk users24. The legal regulation of drugs has been noted as an important development because it is considered a means for reducing drug-related crimes, corruption, and violence. Reports from the news have indicated how many crimes have involved criminals often under the influence of drugs and the drug being the primary driving influence for the commission of their crime25. Some critics have noted that the issue is not with the drug regulation, but on the drug user, and how he abuses such drugs. However, at present, the current policies in place are not working well in terms of preventing crimes committed under the influence of drugs26. The next best thing in addressing this issue is the legal regulation of drugs. The legal regulation of drugs can assist in the reduction of crimes. The dependent users of illegal drugs often carry out crimes in order to secure their drug habits especially with the price of illegal drugs having gradually increased27. Those which are legally regulated with prescription can help ensure the immediate as well as significant reduction in property crimes. Majority of drug dealers would not be able to function well under these settings and turf wars for drugs would be reduced, including violence related to drug abuse and guns28. The most significantly single-profit link for organized crime would also be decreased, along with the major cause for police corruption. Evidence suggests that with prohibition as well as extensive enforcement of laws can lead unintentionally cause the increase in violence and crime because users may find more illegal means in order to get their drugs and their drug fix29. As a result, more property crimes can arise. Legal regulation would allow the use of some drugs to the extent where it can serve engaging functions for society. The legal regulation of drugs can also help improve security as well as development for society30. Prohibition has allowed for the creation of a billion dollar business for criminal drug sellers and distributors. Gravitating towards the legally regulated settings would decrease a major source of profit for criminals which are also considered a source of violence among drug cartels31. These drug cartels have been known to compromise the security of different parts of the world, mostly Latin America and other parts of the region. The coverage and impact of illegal markets for some regions have led to scenarios likened to conflict-ridden areas. As the conflict persists, the process for post-drug war rebuilding is also more complicated32. Many countries have been compromised by corrupt practices and violence which have been under the current approach. The imperfect management of drugs would be better as compared to no regulation, and decreasing drug-related corruption would lead to a setting which would support improved institutions for the longer period33. The legal regulation of drugs would also help protect the young population often susceptible to the influence of illicit drug use34. The policies against drugs have actually put the younger population at risk for the dangerous impact of drug use, including criminalization, as well as the risks of being immersed in the violence of drug sales and trade35. Markets which are legally managed by legitimate and responsible government agents, alongside policies enforced for health and prevention activities are a better option for drug regulation. Among the young population not involved in drugs, they are sometimes only marginalized by criminalization and the criminal control from drug production can lead to risks related to drug abuse36. This may be seen in the sale of illicit products and the consumption of drugs using dangerous methods. With effective legal regulation, the access of children to drugs would be limited37. The limitation would be much better as compared to the market which is being managed by criminals. In some states in the US, buying drugs is sometimes easier than buying liquor. It would not be the function of the criminal justice system to secure messages for public health, and at the time it has tried, it has not been effective38. Legal regulation including controls in impositions it can cause in terms of packaging, in terms of vendors, outlets, implies better opportunities in informing the user about the use of drugs39. Financial savings from the budgets coming from enforcement processes can also help guarantee effective as well as targeted drug risk education40. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child implies the need to ensure protection for children, and punishing them as well as criminalizing their acts would not actually protect their welfare41. The war against drugs does not prevent its use and it does not even protect children and the impositions from the UN declaration including associated health improvements for these children imply provisions for the guidance on drug policies and their development42. The legal regulation of drugs undeniably also allows for the protection of human rights in a much better extent as compared to other option in addressing the drug issue43. In prioritizing law enforcement goals, the marginalization of human rights has been observed, causing significant and abusive practices in the management of drug users, and in general law enforcement as well. Drug policy must ensure, as well as promote human rights44. Police and military decisions are at present part of human rights evaluation as well as accountability. In some countries, such limited oversight has led to a system of impunity where abuse, rape, executions, and other major abuse of power has become the norm among police enforcers. Militarized police practice has mostly led to abuses, also decreasing the responsibility of enforcers. With more conflicts, the power of citizens in the exercise of their rights has been compromised. Civil, as well as economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights have been affected in different ways. However, by not criminalizing drug users, legal regulation is set to decrease risks in relation to human rights abuses. It also has the power to support a culture wherein drug users would not be discriminated against and other organizations negatively affected by current policies including women, and indigenous communities would also not be marginalized. Legal regulation of drugs can also promote policy making which would be based on evidence, not based on opinions from policy-makers. Policies must all be based on the actual reality happening in society at the time the law or policy is passed45. However, current policies on drugs are not responsive to the current issue in relation to drugs. Prohibition including its related policies is still founded on puritan policies which seek to ensure abstinence46. These policies are actually based on times when the goal of society was to ensure temperance in the use of intoxicating substances like liquor and drugs. Such policies have been considered uncompromising, even with the fact that society has changed significantly from the time where such temperance movement has been seen47. In contrast to the policies on prohibition, legal regulation would help secure various options to address the issues which are being presented by drugs48. Various models can be tested and employed, including the establishment and implements of policies which are founded on effective evidence. In general, as soon as drug trade control is locked firm for governments, regulatory systems can be shifted to react well to differing issues and circumstances49. It is crucial to understand that the policies related to regulation would not be imposed immediately for all types of drugs. Some drugs may be legalized first, followed by other drugs in the years to come50. At first, the decision by government officials would be to cautiously impose regulations. As soon as evidence is presented in support of the decision to regulate, more support can be expected. The costs in relation to the regulation and implementation of new policies in relation to drug control would be relevant but would not be as extensive when associated with the current spending seen in current policy implementation51. The implementation of drug laws is considered of low financial return. It is very much expensive and failures in goals are often common. It can also lead to other risks as well as costs incurred for society including issues in economic development and risks incurred by legitimate businesses. Additional investments in limited resources in relation to other policing options would help provide better outcomes being sought. For those who need it, drug treatment carried out among communities has been considered as cheaper when related to prison terms or other sanctions. Community-based drug treatment on the other hand implies a return in investment $18.50 a day for the taxpayers52. The regulation in drug markets also provides for a chance in imposing taxes and increasing revenue. The legal regulation of drugs in the US is likely to bring about $46 billion of revenues a year, as well as saving the government expenditure in prohibition53. While the benefits of legal regulation have been discussed above, some issues have been noted by those advocating the status quo on the drug issue. For one, they argue that with the legalization of drugs, the consumption of drugs would now be increased while also coexisting with the greater availability of the product. However, it cannot also be denied that drug policies are not working54. Even while drug policies are actually being significantly criticized, it would have been worse if a war against drugs have never been set forth. The issue in drugs would have come about sooner if it was legalized early. Those supporting legalization of drugs indicate that individuals often use drugs and would persist in the habit even if the practice is illegal55. This argument however cannot be made to stand. Many crimes have been committed, and while these crimes are illegal, considerations on making these crimes legal were made. For instance, murder has been committed by many criminals, and yet no suggestions have been made to make murder legal in order to solve the criminal issue. This may be due to the fact that most individuals consider the implementation of law in relation to the illegality of murder is being secured to decrease the occurrence of murder in order to support costs of such policy put in place56. Supporters of drug prohibition believe that this is the same case for drugs, that even if drug laws do not eliminate the abuse of drugs, these laws would still be able to decrease it. Some believe that those supporting the legalization of drugs sometimes wrongfully use the years of prohibition in the US to support their position57. They argue that drug prohibition policies actually do not work. Prohibition made the manufacture, sales, and transport of liquor illegal. Still, using prohibition to the same arguments in drug control laws cannot be considered correct. Prohibition, per se actually relates to the decriminalization, especially as possessing alcohol was not illegal58. Also, alcohol, in relation to illegal drugs has long been accepted by Western society. Most people do not have issues with alcohol intake, so much so that in the 1930s, support for prohibition waned. On the other hand, most people believe that illicit drugs, must be kept illicit59. As such, prohibition has been made even more complicated to promote as compared to drug laws and still, a decrease in the amount of alcohol taken in has been somehow decreased, including violence related to alcohol intake and intoxication. Drug use is being associated with availability. With less drugs made available, the consumption has been considered less, and vice versa60. In effect, if drugs would be legalized, the abuse would also increase. Whether they are more accessible, they would not become as expansive, and would be easier to avail of and to use. In the end, drug abuse and use would increase. This would eventually cause health issues for society61. Among supporters who are not convinced in their advocacy for legalization, they argue that drug use would not necessarily increase as drugs are legalized. There is no actual good argument to expect that it would not increase. Also, to support the notion of increase, it is important to consider the fact that a good number of people are prevented in their use and crime commission because they fear the legal consequences of their actions62. Drugs being illegal prevent individuals from experimenting on it or abusing it. It is therefore fair to conclude that some of these individuals would not stop themselves from using drugs as soon as it is made legal63. Also, laws are statements imposed by the state in order to support the social order and prevent any risks to society. Laws indicate the right and wrong. As soon as these laws on drug use are eliminated, the stigma against drugs is removed and a message is sent to the people of drug use not being dangerous anymore64. On more practical grounds, considering the financial considerations related to legalization and the impact on drug affordability, undoubtedly, drug use is likely to increase. This may be based on the laws on economics implies that the reduction of price would increase the consumption of the product65. Increased availability and its risks also dictate prices of the product in the market. The prices of drugs are also about higher than the costs incurred when compared to legal production66. Conclusion The arguments presented above imply both the benefits and risks related to the legalization of drug use. All in all, there are risks which need to be addressed before any legalization policy on drugs can be set forth. These risks cannot be denied or downplayed because they are risks relating to the health and welfare of the people. However, as these risks are addressed, the legalization of drugs can be set forth with good outcomes for society. References Basu, R. (2013). Should Marijuana be Legalized?. New York: Wiley. Cohen, A. and Wellman, C. (2014). Contemporary debates in ethics. New York: Wiley. Devlin, R. J., & Henry, J. A. (2008). Clinical review: Major consequences of illicit drug consumption. Crit Care, 12(1), 202. Gilmore, I. T. (2012). Drug policy debate is needed. BMJ-British Medical Journal, 344(2), e2381. Lima, I. C. B. F. (2013). Drug policy: What impact does it have on children and youth?. Revista Psicologia & Sociedade, 25. McKeganey, N. (2012). Harm reduction at the crossroads and the rediscovery of drug user abstinence. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 19(4), 276-283. Mikalsen, R. (2014). Regarding Drug Law and Human Rights Law; Another Follow-Up. New York: Routledge. Monaghan, M. (2012). The recent evolution of UK drug strategies: From maintenance to behaviour change. People, Place & Policy Online, 6(1), 29-40. Nutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W., & Blakemore, C. (2007). Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. The Lancet,369(9566), 1047-1053. Porto, M. S. G., & Maciel, W. C. (2014). Decriminalization of Drugs: An Alternative to Decrease Brazilian Violence. Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 2014. Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TPDF), (2014). Debating Drugs: How to make the case for legal regulation [online]. Available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Transform-Drug-Policy-Foundation/Debating-Drugs.pdf [Accessed 01 January 2014]. Transform Drug Policy Foundation (2015). The Benefits of legal regulation [online]. Available at: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/benefits-legal-regulation [Accessed 02 January 2014]. The US Dept. of Justice (n.d) Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions [online]. Available at: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths1.htm [Accessed 01 January 2014]. Read More