After I read Peter’s post “Worse than Heroin: Another reason for legalisation", I check the source “Synthetic drug fentanyl causes overdose boom in Estonia”, I don’t find any indication that the writer appeal to legalize use of fentanyl. He states the fact about serious consequence, which includes death, HIV, hepatitis and family broken up, caused by using fentanyl in Estonia and hopes Estonian government take actions to solve the problems. Is there only way to solve the problem, which is Peter’s suggestion that is decriminalization using fentanyl? I don’t think so.
Firstly, the first reason is “If fentanyl were legal, addicts could more easily get help”, I agree with the assumption that addicts could get help more conveniently because there would be more addiction treatment centre in Estonian with more professional doctors; but there would be more addicts than now in Estonian which were the result of legalization using fentanyl, which will make the public have a protest to express their dissatisfaction. Can the government use a way to solve problems on the one hand but to produce other problems on the other hand? Definitely no, they can’t.
Then,” If it were legal, the price would be lower, so there would be less crime.” It is true but not the point of fentanyl problems. To declare a person commit crime or not just has meaning on law, it doesn’t change a person’s behavior. It has nothing to do with addicts’ health and life. Governments should focus on people’s health and real life rather than money, corruption or crime rate, which presents that I disagree with another reason about corruption of policemen and officials.
Next, I partly disagree with “If it were not illegal, the quality could be regulated, so there would be fewer deaths and other health problems.” I believe the quality of fentanyl would be ruled if it were legal to use fentanyl, but there would be many kinds of fentanyl with different purity to meet addicts’ need. The death toll caused by wrongly using high degree fentanyl would decrease, but the impending doom for addicts is inevitable with dosage of fentanyl increasing. Therefore, legalization using fentanyl would not make people’s death decrease but increase because addicts became more and more.
I can’t imagine what situation I would be in if legalizing use of fentanyl or other dangerous drugs, which means that people can buy dangerous drugs as convenient as Coca Cole? Would I need to worry about is there somebody who I offend by accident to put drugs into my drink or food? It is too horrible. Actually, people would recognize that they should keep far away from fentanyl if Estonian government sent doctors go to schools to educate young people and advertised the dangerous consequence of using fentanyl on TV in prime time.
References
Peter. (2012, April 3) Worse than Heroin: Another reason for legalization Retrieved April 8, 2012 from http://peteraep.blogspot.com/2012/04/worse-than-heroin-another-reason-for.html?showComment=1333894379772#c3878543887971111086
Wilson, S. (2012, March 30). Synthetic drug fentanyl causes overdose boom in Estonia. BBC News. Retrieved April 8, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17524945
"Can the government use a way to solve problems on the one hand but to produce other problems on the other hand? Definitely no, they can’t."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Crystal that governments should not create more problems to solve others. However, legalising drugs does not create more problems. Legalisation only reduces and solves existing problems.
First, legalizing drugs does not result in an increase in drug use or addiction. This is a question of fact that can only be decided by looking at real examples. The real examples are clear: making a drug legal or illegal has very little or no significant effect on the use of that drug.
For example, the legalisation of marijuana in the Netherlands some years ago has not led to any great increase in marijuana use there. In fact, as Hartmann notes in "Drug Use and Abuse Worldwide", citing United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports, marijuana use is actually lower in Western European countries, where is either legal or tolerated by the law, than in the US, where its use is strictly illegal (2007, p. 204 - 5). In the Netherlands, where marijuana possession and use has had de facto legality for more than ten years and where it has always been lower than in the US, research shows that among school-goers cannabis use declined slightly between 1996 and 2003, and stabilised in 2005 (Trimbos Institute, 2007, p. 25). Finally, we see exactly the same result in the United States experience with making alcohol illegal in 1919. Did the use of this drug decrease as the law makers and their public supporters expected? No. When alcohol was made illegal in the US, its use actually increased (Miron, 1999).
It might sound reasonable that if drugs are legalised their use will increase, but the facts do not support that. The available facts clearly and consistently show that legalizing drugs does not lead to any significant increase in use.
References
Hartmann, P. (2007). Quest 2 Reading and Writing (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miron, A. (1999, May). The effect of alcohol prohibition on alcohol consumption. In Social Science Research Network. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper No. W7130. Abstract retrieved April 8, 2012, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10963 [The full 41 page report is available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w7130.pdf ]
Timbos Institute. (2007). The Netherlands National Drug Monitor Annual Report 2007. Author. Retrieved April 8, 2012 from http://www.trimbos.nl/~/media/Files/Gratis%20downloads/AF0837%20NDM_Annual_Report_compleet.ashx
Crystal,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking my and Hartmann's opinion about drugs seriously enough to argue against it.
I am happy to support my idea, and if you think I'm wrong, you should certainly push me to give solid support.
In my above reply, I've tried to give the sort of evidence that is needed here, and to support the facts with reliable, official sources published by government bodies. Any question about what will or will not happen requires research to uncover relevant facts and statistics, which is what I've used to support my claim that legalizing drugs does not cause more problems, but only reduces existing problems.
If you think that I've made a mistake somewhere, whether in a fact or a reason, please continue the discussion.
"Actually, people would recognize that they should keep far away from fentanyl if Estonian government sent doctors go to schools to educate young people and advertised the dangerous consequence of using fentanyl on TV in prime time" (Crystal, ¶ 5).
ReplyDeleteThis idea seems to me a bit like thinking that legalizing a drug leads to an increase in use. It's sounds reasonable and right, but again, the available facts show that it is wrong.
Everyone already knows that all popular recreational drugs are harmful, dangerous and unhealthy; and that does not stop people using alcohol, heroin, yaa baa, cocaine, or any other drug. The US and Thai governments, like my government in Australia, have run educational campaigns for many years, and the drug problem continues. If you ask drug users, they already know that what they are doing is unhealthy, but they do it any way. Children already know before they start to use drugs that they are bad news, but that does not stop them.
Education is a great thing, but it does not and cannot cure all problems, and in the case of drug use, past education programs have pretty much failed to reduce the use of any drug. I think more imaginative solutions are needed.
I don't think that legalisation is a perfect solution, but it's one part of a sensible solution combined with other strategies, which should also include education, but perhaps something more is also needed.
Does anyone have another idea to help solve the very real and serious drug problems that exist in society? (And it would help if you have some solid support for your idea. Why should we think your idea will really be effective?)
Although I mentioned it in class as another relevant example to help us understand the effect of legalizing all drugs, I did not discuss Portugal in my previous comments here.
ReplyDeleteIn 2001, Portugal decriminalized the personal use and possession for personal use of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and amphetamines. Naturally, some people feared disastrous increases in drug use and addiction. What happened and has since happened in Portugal?
Only the best has happened: "none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents—from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for 'drug tourists'—has occurred" (Greenwald, 2009, Executive Summary, p. 1). And for children, the statistics are even better. For example, "for students in the 7th–9th grades (13–15 years old), the rate decreased from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006" (p. 11). If you care about protecting children from the dangers of drugs, the statistics from Portugal strongly suggest that the most important thing to start with is to legalize all drugs.
I can understand the fears of many people that decriminalizing drugs will lead to increased usage, but that believe is wrong.
What is not understandable or acceptable is for politicians, police and other officials to keep repeating that false idea. They must know what the research plainly shows, so I think it's reasonable to say that when politicians and officials say that some drugs must hypocritically be kept illegal to protect children or society, they are lying. This serious dishonesty from officials and politicians debases the entire society.
Again, society and citizens would benefit greatly from the legalization of drugs.
References
Greenwald, G. (2009). Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. Cato Institute [White paper]. Retreived April 9, 2012 from http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf