Many criminals will use substances such as talcum powder- which is harmful when consumed, and/ or salt. This makes the drug much cheaper to manufacture, dealers and producers can sell for a high price and get almost all of it back in profit. The cheap chemicals are the main ingredient in a product, sometimes the only ingredient, this makes it a lot easier to get addicted as the user will be looking for a good high. Essentially they will not get one due to the chemicals and will keep on waiting until next time, the cycle goes on. However if someone was to get government regulated drugs, they would always get the high they are looking for and there will be less likelihood of addiction.
There's a reason Prohibition failed so spectacularly. There's also a reason that the alcohol available at the time so often caused blindness, sickness, etc. People will do what they like, regardless of legality. Instead of overdoses at the hospital, cleaner drugs would be given and monitored. Govt. Regulated drugs would reduce crime significantly, taxes would increase revenue and erase debt, and anyone using will know the purity and be able to use accordingly. If someone does not use maturely, like the only detractor to this states, it will only be because they (as an adult) chose not to heed the warning.
The only possible con I can see in this scenario is that law enforcement might have some cutbacks. Which, frankly, would be fine since so many less people would be seeking drugs on the street and drug dealers would be effectively out of business.
Legalizing and taxing drugs could instantly end the
recession by bringing large amounts of revenue into the government. It would also free up space in the criminal
justice system to imprison more violent criminals and therefore make the
streets safer. Also, if drugs were
legal, they could be regulated to make sure that they don’t contain as many
People should be able to choose whether or not they want to do drugs or not. By making drugs legal in certain amounts the government can actually make them safer by monitoring them and regulating amounts to individuals. The government would also benefit by getting the money from the taxes and can use it to put in t support for people that do not want to be addicted anymore. Overall I believe that the government should put it up to voters and let them make their choice.
If I want to consume a particular molecule, why should the government have the right to tell me I cannot do that? It is not logical to assume that making a substance illegal will stop use or somehow deter it to a substantial statistic. The argument that it increases use among minors is unscientific and incorrect, considering that dealers don't ask for the buyer to provide an ID. This is a simple answer, yet the pharmaceutical and numerous more industries are the ones who say what's "good" or "bad".
When marijuana was illegal, most people only had access to relatively weak strains compared to what is out there now. Most had only one or two choices and both had a less high effect than what is available in the new legal marijuana stores. Now, those who have access to legal pot have many choices and most are much more potent than what they had taken before. With much higher dosages of THC, comes a greater danger to the person taking it and to others around them.
In the past, I had mentioned a new strain of marijuana that lacks the high side effect. It has much higher levels of CBD, the part that most people need as medication, but with almost zero THC, the part that gets people high. When I mentioned it and said how by making it the only legal form would encourage other states to legalize it as medication. This would result in more people getting the medicine they need. Unfortunately, mentioning it and the idea of making it the only legal kind got very bad reviews. I would guess because these people would rather hold out for the kind that gets you real high rather than helping others sooner.
The higher levels of THC are dangerous because marijuana interferes with depth perception, and reaction time. If they are put in a situation where either were a factor, even something simple like crossing a street could end up killing themselves or others who swerve to avoid them. Imagine what would happen if they were driving a car like some actually do. In fact, a truck driver who was high blew threw an intersection and rammed into the side of a school bus in Alton TX. The bus rolled over into a gravel pit where 21 students drowned and 49 others where injured.
The idea of less crime is foolish as well. As many may have heard, many of the Colorado marijuana stores have been closed due to their cartel links. This means that they put money in the pockets of drug cartels who also put very harmful drugs on the street.
As far as other drugs are considered. Most of them have been diluted or "stepped on" this not only adds other ingredients to the drug that could have a bad result but the main purpose is to dilute the drug so they make more profit.
Example: Say you have about 10 grams of pure cocaine and add 5 grams of baking soda to it. You just increased your profit by 50%. Thing is, most drugs, by the time they get to the druggy, are only about 20% to 65% pure. If these drugs are made legal, then people that are use to a product that is 20% cocaine and take the same dose of the pharmaceutical grade 100%, they would die from an overdose. I doubt that a druggy will take the much higher purity into consideration.
Legal drugs = less safe drugs.