Psychology Wiki

Arguments for and against drug prohibition

34,130pages on
this wiki

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Social psychology: Altruism · Attribution · Attitudes · Conformity · Discrimination · Groups · Interpersonal relations · Obedience · Prejudice · Norms · Perception · Index · Outline

The prohibition of drugs is a subject of considerable controversy. The following is a presentation of arguments for and against drug prohibition.

Arguments against prohibition, and for legalization/decriminalization Edit

Education and Research Edit

In PiHKAL, Alexander Shulgin, argues that the psychedelics help us learn about ourselves; indeed that is where the name "psychedelic" (mind expanding) comes from. They may also teach us about the nature of reality itself.[1]Template:Page number

Moral, Spiritual and Religious Edit

Many of the arguments for drug prohibition are based on perceptions of drugs as dangerous to people, which creates the basis for a moral opposition to drug use. Some of Mifflin |pages=19–20 |isbn=0-395-91156-7 |quote=It is my belief that the desire to alter consciousness periodically is an innate, agencies to reduce harm by prohibition of marijuana.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Consistency between drugs Edit

The belief that "hard" drugs such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences[2] than "soft" drugs such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine.

This disparity was lessened during the Clinton administration when the Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act changed the ratio to 10 to 1. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of offenders convicted for selling crack are poor and/or black, while the majority of those convicted for selling cocaine are not. In fact, Blacks only constitute 13 % of all known drug users, but represent 35 % of all arrests for drug possession and 74 % of all those sentenced to prison for drug possession.[3] In addition, the convention of selling crack in heavily patrolled neighborhoods makes crack dealers easier targets for arrest than cocaine dealers, who tend to operate in private areas, such as dance clubs and college campuses. If this does not demonstrate that anti-drug laws are useless in themselves (so the argument goes), it shows that they are clearly being implemented inequitably.

Same policy for distinct drugs Edit

Many drug policies group all illegal drugs into a single category. Since drugs drastically vary in their effects, dosages, methods of production, and consumption the arguments for or against drug prohibition are shammed.[4]

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws Edit

Some consider the war on drugs, at least in the United States, to be a "war on some drugs" … and some drug users. Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize non-whites more harshly and more often than whites, and to penalize the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes.[5][6][7] The belief that "hard drugs" such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences[8] than "soft drugs" such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine.[9]

Crime/terrorism Edit

Critics of drug prohibitionTemplate:Weal often cite the fact that the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies to support the argument that legalization of drugs could have similar effects. Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake" (Riga 53). When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.[10]

Drug money has been called a major source of income for terrorist organizations. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terrorism.Template:Weal While politiciansTemplate:Weal blame drug users for being a major source of financing terrorists, no clear evidence of this link has been provided. US government agencies and government officials have been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions in events such as the Iran-Contra Affair, and Manuel Noriega but the isolated nature of these events precludes them from being major sources of financing.[11]

Over 2,000 people in Mexico alone have been murdered in drug trafficking related violence in 2006. [1]

Legal dilemmas Edit

Drug prohibition has created several legal dilemmas. For example many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs.[original research?]

Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. SomeTemplate:Weal people have criticized this practice as damaging equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Several drugs such as Dimethyltryptamine,[12] Morphine[13] and GHB[14] are illegal to possess but are also inherently present in all humans as a result of endogenous synthesis. Since some jurisdictions classify possession of drugs to include having the drug present in the blood in any concentration, all residents of such jurisdictions are technically in possession of multiple illegal drugs at all times.[15]

User cost of drugs Edit

When the cost of drugs increases, drugs users are more likely to commit crimes in order to obtain money to buy the expensive drugs (Duke 115). Legalizing drugs would make drugs reasonably cheap (Kane 155).

Health Edit

Legitimate medical use of illegal drugs Edit

Many cultures have used, and still use the same drugs that are illegal under prohibition for both medicine, and comfort with success.[16] It can be argued that if the benefits of a drug can be made clear then the prohibition of the drug is unfounded.

It has been shown that there may be legitimate medical uses to various illegal drugs, such as use of MDMA for cognitive enhancement in people with Parkinson's Disease,[17] or its administration for people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, such as people who have been raped.[18] The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies is a non-profit research and educational organization which assists scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of MDMA, psychedelic drugs and marijuana. MAPS' mission is to sponsor scientific research designed to develop psychedelics and marijuana into FDA-approved prescription medicines, and to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of these drugs.

Cannabis is an example of a mainly illegal drug that can be used medicinally. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+).

Illegal drug impurities Edit

Often illegal drugs are purchased in the underground market, there is no care for hygiene, and drugs may be cut with other substances or sold under different guises to increase supply, sale, potential profit, or user addiction potential. This can be dangerous as even though numerous illegal drugs have very low toxicity levels (low potential for overdose) and low addiction potential their safety status can be altered dramatically if they contain other chemicals of which the buyer is unaware. This can increase the potential for unexpected effects, overdoses, and drug dependence. For instance, tablets sold as MDMA have commonly been found to contain methamphetamine as the primary active ingredient or include methamphetamine in addition to other drugs.[How to reference and link to summary or text] Methamphetamine has much higher comparative addictive potential than MDMA, and a higher risk of overdose as demonstrated by its LD50s. (In actual fact MDMA is methylenedioxymethamphetamine and of course is not a combination of other drugs as is often proposed by teenage abusers.)

Dozens of people died in one year in Cook County alone, in relation to ingesting heroin unknowingly cut with fentanyl. [2] Black tar heroin has been known to carry wound botulism. Variable heroin purity, active cutting agents, and contaminated product is one of the major dangers of heroin use, and is strictly caused by prohibition.

Use of more dangerous but more easily accessible drugs Edit

Because some drugs are difficult to make or acquire under prohibition, users and producers may instead turn to more dangerous drugs that are easier to obtain or attempt dangerous procedures to make drugs covertly.[original research?]

For example, because a drug like cocaine is too expensive, users may turn to another drug like methamphetamine that is arguably more dangerous, but also more easily synthesized.[original research?]

Another example is when a drug is too hard to traffic and sell easily, some users may turn to making it themselves to save money or to keep an easy supply of the drug. If the user is unqualified in chemistry, unwanted reactions may occur.[19] Illict synthesis of methamphetamine often results in an end product dangerously contaminated with toxic byproducts, including chemicals from the reaction such as toluene, iodine or phosphorus, or potent neurotoxins such as 4-iodomethamphetamine. Similarly homebake heroin may contain contaminants such as pyridine and acetic anhydride. Also dealers often dilute drugs in order to make limited supplies stretch further, using any white powder that comes to hand including chalk, salt or flour. Many people have died from injecting drugs contaminated in this way.[original research?]

The synthesis of Nitrous oxide from ammonium nitrate is another example; explosive byproducts are easily created, which means that property damage or severe injuries are likely. Instances are known of individuals suffering death or severe injury after inhaling the highly toxic gas nitric oxide having mistaken it for nitrous oxide.[original research?]

Due to the lack of availability of other drugs, some communities have seen a rise of comparatively more dangerous drugs such as inhalant abuse. This increased use of dangerous legal products, according to some critics,Template:Weal has been more harmful to society than regulated sales of the currently illegal drugs would have been.[How to reference and link to summary or text]Deliriant drugs such as nutmeg and datura are not illegal, even though they are both more likely than most illegal drugs to cause death from acute overdose, and have a higher tendency to cause confusion and potentially violent unpredictable behaviour. Some medicines such as Benadryl (diphenhydramine) and Dramamine (dimenhydrinate) are sometimes taken in dangerous overdoses when people try to use them to achieve deliriant effects.[original research?]Toad licking has also been noted to cause deaths, for instance in an incident where a man died from confusing the hallucinogenic Colorado River Toad with another kind of toad that sweats powerful cardiotoxic steroids.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Block to research Edit

The illegality of many recreational drugs may be dissuading research into new, more effective and perhaps safer recreational drugs. For example, it has been proposed that a safer substitute to alcohol with many of the same desired effects could be created imparting many health and safety benefits to society.[20] Furthermore, the compensation received and knowledge gained in the creation of new recreational drugs might allow for more basic research into human biology, treatments for medical conditions such as depression, and general improvements in the functionality of humans. Also, the illegality of recreational drugs may be hindering the ability of companies to discover and market drugs that could be used for recreation, but could also be effective as medical treatments.

Arguments for prohibition, and against legalization/decriminalization Edit

Moral and religious Edit

Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.[21]`

For example, the Qur'an advises against the use of 'al-khamri' (intoxicants, derived from 'khamara', to cover, i. e. substances that 'cover one's mind' or 'cloud one's judgment'), saying 'in them there is a gross sin, and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.' (2:219), and that they are 'abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them, that you may succeed.'

In Judaeo-Christianity, the Bible is famously silent on drugs that are illicit today, though makes frequent mention of wine. Isaiah 5:11–12 was a key quote of the Temperance movement: Template:"

In Scientology, drugs are viewed as a cause of spiritual damage and bodily contamination, with addiction being an obstacle to self-fulfillment.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

In Buddhism, it is considered wrong to use drugs that lead to carelessness or heedlessness (the fifth precept of The Five Precepts).

In secular philosophy, as drug use is largely focused on individual or group leisure, drugtaking is sometimes criticised as a self-centred, non-altruistic or selfish activity, and is subject to similar moral criticism levelled at egoism and hedonism. This subject also brings up the question of how heavily morality should be legislated.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Drug prohibition as a solution to problems of society Edit

Some proponents of drug prohibition, such as members of the Temperance movement, support drug prohibition on the basis that many of the perceived problems or flaws of society are caused by the use of drugs or drug addiction. As to maintain consistency with this stance, these proponents often call for prohibition of alcohol[How to reference and link to summary or text]. Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts and drug pushers (attracted by profits) if drugs are decriminalized. They believe addicts are more likely to commit more crimes because their minds are altered (some drugs may cause harmful behaviour), much as drunk criminals do sometimes[How to reference and link to summary or text].[original research?]

Economics and psychosocial arguments Edit

While a distinction is often made between 'problem use' of drugs (addiction, alcoholism, binge drinking etc.) and recreational use of drugs (e. g. in clubbing or party settings), possession and sale of illicit drugs remains illegal (ref. the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).

Psychoactive substances, licit or illicit, typically bear a substantial cost to society. Social costs may take numerous forms, for example short- and long-term healthcare provision; crime committed by users to maintain their habit; harm reduction programs; addiction treatment; public nuisance and third party damage; absence from work and lost productivity; crime committed by drug users while under the influence; and, often primarily, costs associated with identifying/ arresting/ prosecuting/ incarcerating/ reintegrating into society people involved in the drug trade [How to reference and link to summary or text][original research?]


In the case of licit psychoactive substances (e. g. alcohol and tobacco), such costs are easily ascertainable and are rarely redeemed [How to reference and link to summary or text] by tax revenue or the economic/employment contribution made by their manufacturers. The World Health Organization published a Global Status Report on Alcohol (2004). In this report, the social and economic costs of alcohol abuse in the US was estimated at $ 184.6 billion (1998). In the case of illegal drugs, it is harder to define precise figures for the cost of drugs given the underground nature of the market, although existing estimates for social costs are high: the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 2006) [How to reference and link to summary or text] places the cost at $ 181 billion per year in the US. Moreover, in the case of illegal drugs, there is no revenue from taxation to subsidise such societal costs. There are also additional costs from the enforcement of drug laws and imprisonment of offenders.

An additional, micro-economic argument is that drug users (especially problem users) tend to spend a considerable portion of their day-to-day budget on drugs.[original research?]

As any legalisation is likely to be accompanied by high taxation of the drugs, problem drug users—or those with borderline-heavy drug consumption—might increase current spending, particularly as they will no longer suffer the current stigma attached to purchasing from a dealer or criminal (for example, cigarettes in many countries are as expensive as crack, while cannabis typically offers cheaper intoxication than alcohol [How to reference and link to summary or text]). While prohibitionists may be criticised for paternalistic attitudes to protecting an individual from self-harm, there exists a genuine risk that, with no legal thresholds to purchase and a commercial interest for the (legal) vendor to sell as much as possible, users might be tempted to 'max out' on their drug spending.

One economic argument for defending prohibition of certain substances is to protect traditional producers of legal psychoactive substances (in particular alcohol) from competing with 'newly-legalised entrants' into the recreational drug market.[original research?]

The argument (an example of protectionism) runs that legal drugs are valuable cultural artifacts and provide a livelihood to entire industries, populations and regions. To use the alcohol example, today's products have emerged over centuries to provide intoxication and delivery of dose in a societally-acceptable fashion. Low-potency products (beer/wine) in particular have evolved to extend sought-after effects to provide sustainable revenues for retail outlets. It is uncertain whether illegal drugs, after prohibition, could sustain similar levels of economic activity or employment, and whether increased polydrug consumption would threaten traditional, legal drug sellers.

Health Edit

Some prohibitionists[How to reference and link to summary or text] argue that illegalizing drugs limits access to them and therefore decreases their negative affects on society. Possible immediate detrimental health effects include altered awareness, reduced motor control, poisoning, and death by overdose. Prohibited drugs may also detrimentally impact broader long term measures of health and well being such as educational performance, standard-of-living, and incidence of depression.

There is concern over a variety of other possible links between health problems and specific prohibited drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents)[How to reference and link to summary or text]; physical addiction and substance cravings; co-morbid diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C[How to reference and link to summary or text]; psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis, and others. Health risk profiles may vary substantially between different prohibited drugs.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

In many cases though there is contention as to whether apparent correlations between use of a prohibited drug and an increased health risk results from the drug use itself or results from other factors such as the prohibition of drugs (or related social/ sociological/ legal issues related to such prohibition), economic situations, or social situations.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

The U.S. government has argued that illegal drugs are "far more deadly than alcohol" because "[a]lthough alcohol is used by seven times as many people as drugs, the number of deaths induced by those substances is not far apart." [3] However, there is evidence that many illicit drugs pose comparatively fewer health dangers than certain licit drugs (e. g. alcohol and tobacco). In the UK, an average of 500,000 people take ecstasy every weekend, 40 million are social drinkers, 11 million are "at risk" or "problem" drinkers, and 9 million smoke cigarettes, resulting in 40 ecstasy-related deaths a year, 6500 deaths due to alcohol and 120 000 deaths due to smoking, making the per user risk of ecstasy on par with alcohol (about 1:10,000 occasions) but below tobacco. [4][5][6] [7]

Gateway Drugs Edit

The US Government and others have argued that certain drugs (such as cannabis) act as gateways to use of harder drugs such as heroin, either because of social contact or because of an increasing search for a better high.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Crime, Terrorism and Social Order Edit

There is an argument that much crime and terrorism is drug related or drug funded and that prohibition should reduce this.[How to reference and link to summary or text] Experts like Andreas von Bülow and Milton Friedman consent that almost every serious crime an terrorism is funded by illegal drugs but they don't agree that prohibition can reduce these phenomenons. In fact the prohibition protects the drug cartel.[11][22]

Rebuttals to Arguments for drug prohibition and against legalization/decriminalization Edit

Economic Edit

Whilst it must be accepted that the costs of drug-related crime, for countries with a state provided health service, are large, several other factors must be taken into account. Firstly, the taxation of these drugs, coupled with increased employment opportunites, could offset some of these costs. However, evidence from tobacco and alcohol suggests that not all the costs are offset [How to reference and link to summary or text]. It can be sometimes seen, however, that a secondary reduction of costs is often passed over—in countries such as Britain, the detrimental health effects of the drugs can actually save the state money, as death at around the age of 60 would greatly decrease social security and retirement payments. Legalisation would also allow far cheaper drugs (heroin and opiates are very cheap to produce), upon which a great deal of taxation could be placed to increase the offsetting of those costs. Moreover, these costs are still being incurred by the illegal use of illicit drugs, but none of it can be recouped as there is no taxation.

A second problem that arises from prohibition is the in-elasticity of demand for illegal drugs.[original research?]

The War on Drugs causes the supply of drugs to decrease; meanwhile, the demand for the drugs stays the same. This causes the price of drugs to increase, yet the amount of drugs sold remains constant, thus generating higher revenue, i. e., profits for suppliers.

Gateway Drugs Edit

Some people say the only reason cannabis users are exposed to harder drugs is because they are having to go through drug dealers or exposing themselves to people and places where they are available. [How to reference and link to summary or text][original research?]

Possible stopgap solutions Edit

Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might satisfy both sides of this issue as well as solving many of the social problems that drugs cause. In a compromise, drugs would remain illegal but drug addicts who are non-violent and are convicted for drug possession could go to a drug rehabilitation clinic instead of prison. As an example, treatment is only currently available for approximately 15 % of the U.S. drug addict population.[How to reference and link to summary or text] Under a decriminalization scheme, some people convicted of minor drug offenses may be sentenced to rehabilitation instead of prison. Drug addicts would then be treated as the diseased, and not treated as criminals. Possession of drugs would be an infraction rather than a felony. Drug dealers, violent drug addicts/possessers and addicts who possess a large quantity of drugs (probably for sale and not personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons.

This could greatly reduce overcrowded prison populations and increase real prison time for serious criminals such as murderers.[How to reference and link to summary or text] For example, a murderer who is sentenced 20 years to life, but who only serves 7 actual years due to prison overcrowding, will serve about 10 years of real time when the compromise reduces prison population. By being soft on minor criminals, penalties become harder on major criminals who commit victim crimes.

One solution has been described thus: Decriminalization of drugs would allow addicts to receive medical aid and free drugs from the clinic. Drug addicts would come back to the clinic regularly for the free drugs. Drug dealers would be unable to sell their drugs to addicts who get the drugs for free. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drugs are illegal in order to sell drugs. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminals. The number of robberies would be reduced—formerly committed by addicts who spend the stolen money on drugs. There would be fewer police deaths because there would be no shootouts between drug dealers and police. Drug pushers would not be walking around asking people if they want to buy drugs because they will go to jail, as usual.

Decriminalization has several central problems.[original research?]

Providing addicts with drugs requires additional funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this essentially constitute partial legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may exacerbate problems. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market culture (i. e. organized crime and dealer disputes), prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market culture. Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess, or if not actually legal, only a civil offense.

Critics of partial decriminalization—who may either be on the side of prohibition or legalization—warn that the decriminalization of a soft drug (for example, cannabis) in an area may lead to increased sale of harder drugs (for example, heroin). The problems associated with illegal heroin use—fatalities, muggings, burglaries, use of infected needles—would rise in the area, possibly leading the authorities to conclude that the full legalization of cannabis would exacerbate the situation. (Although in the Netherlands, the opposite idea has been taken—as decriminalization of cannabis has been used as a tactic to separate 'soft' and 'hard' drug markets) Furthermore, in the case of cannabis decriminalization the sale of the drug would still be illegal, and revenue from it would still go into the pockets of criminals instead of the government's treasury (although in the Netherlands for instance, shops selling marijuana still pay income taxes on the product—despite marijuana being technically illegal).

See also Edit

External links Edit

Further reading Edit

  • The Cult of Pharmacology: How America Became the World's Most Troubled Drug Culture. Richard DeGrandpre, Duke University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-8223-3881-9
  • Toward a Policy on Drugs: Decriminalization? Legalization? Currie, Elliot. Dissent. 1993. Rpt. in Drug Use Should Be Decriminalized. At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 55–64.
  • How Legalization Would Cut Crime. Duke, Steven B. Los Angeles Times. 21 Dec. 1993. Rpt. in Legalizing Drugs Would Reduce Crime. Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 115–117.
  • Rolles S. Kushlick D. Jay M. 2004 After the War on Drugs, Options for Control Transform Drug Policy Foundation
  • America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs. Duke, Steven B. and Albert C. Gross. New York: Putnam Books, 1993. Rpt. In Legalizing Drugs Would Benefit the United States. At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 32–48.
  • Legalization Madness. Inciardi, James A. and Christine A. Saum. Public Interest 123 (1996): 72–82. Rpt. in Legalizing Drugs Would Increase Violent Crime. Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 142–150.
  • Poll Shows Most Russians Against Legalization of Soft Drugs. ITAR-TASS. BBC Monitoring 26 June 2003. Newsbank. 1 Feb 2004.
  • Jaffer, Mehru, U.N. Firm Against Legalization of Drugs. Inter Press Service 17 Apr. 2003. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [8].
  • Kane, Joseph P. The Challenge of Legalizing Drugs. America 8 Aug. 1992. Rpt. in Should Drugs Be Legalized? Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Health and Society. 2nd ed., Eileen L. Daniel, ed., Guilford, CT.: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1996: 154–158.
  • Luna, Claire. Orange County Judge Gray, a Drug-War Foe, Will Run for Senate Now a Libertarian, the Longtime Advocate of Legalization Will Challenge Boxer in 2004. Los Angeles Times 20 Nov. 2003: B3. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [9].
  • Lynch, Gerald W. Legalizing Drugs Is Not the Solution. America 13 Feb. 1993. Rpt. in Legalizing Drugs Would Not Reduce Crime. At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 110–113.
  • McGrath, Matt. Economic Considerations on the Legalization of Cannabis. Tufts 13 Dec. 1994. 30 July 1997. [10]. Rpt. in Marijuana Should Be Legalized. Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 112–130.
  • McNeely, Jennifer. Methadone Maintenance Treatment. Lindesmith Center 1997. Rpt. in Methadone Is an Effective Treatment for Heroin Addiction. Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 91–95.
  • McWilliams, Peter. Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. Los Angeles, CA. : Prelude Press, 1996 (full text)
  • Mendez, Julia de Cruz and Ralf Winkler. Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Jan. 1996. 24 Mar. 2004 [11].
  • Paulin, Alastair. Taxation Without Legalization. Mother Jones June 2003: 26. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [12].
  • Riga, Peter J. The Drug War Is a Crime: Let's Try Decriminalization. Commonweal. 16 July 1993. Rpt. in Legalization Would Help Solve the Nation's Drug Problem. At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 52–54.
  • Rodriguez, L. Jacabo. Time to End the Drug War. CATO Institute 13 Dec. 1997. 23 Feb. 2004 [13].
  • Should We Re-Legalize Drugs? United States Libertarian Party. 22 Feb. 2004 [14].
  • Thornton, Mark. Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure. CATO Institute 17 July 1991. 24 Mar. 2004 [15].
  • Wink, Walter. Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Potion. Friends Journal Feb. 1996. Rpt. in Illegal Drugs Should Be Legalized. Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 107–114.
  • Zuckerman, Mortimer B. Great Idea for Ruining Kids. U.S. News & World Report 24 Feb. 1997. Rpt. in Legalizing Drugs Would Increase Drug Use. Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 151–152.
  • Leavitt, Fred. (2003) The REAL Drug Abusers. Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Armentano, Paul. Drug War Mythology in You Are Being Lied To. China: The Disinformation Company Ltd., 2001. Pages 234–240
  • Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence, in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113–130.

References Edit

  1. Shulgin, Alexander; Ann Shulgin (1991). PiHKAL: A Chemical Love Story, Transform Press.
  2. Federal Trafficking Penalties
  3. Effectiveness of the War on Drugs
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Weil-TheNaturalMind-17
  5. Human Rights Watch. Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs. Report. URL accessed on 2008-03-09.
  6. Coyle, Michael Race and class penalties in crack cocaine sentencing. Sentencing Project. URL accessed on 2008-03-09.
  7. Glasscote, Raymond M.; Sussex, J.N., Jaffe, J.H., Ball, J., Brill, L. (1972). The Treatment of Drug Abuse: Programs, Problems, Prospects, Washington, D.C.: Joint Information Service of the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association for Mental Health. URL accessed 2008-03-09. "… as a general rule, we reserve the term drug abuse to apply to the illegal, nonmedical use of a limited number of substances, most of them drugs, which have properties of altering the mental state in ways that are considered by social norms and defined by statute to be inappropriate, undesirable, harmful, threatening, or, at minimum, culture-alien."
  8. Drug Enforcement Administration. Federal Trafficking Penalties. URL accessed on 2008-03-07.
  9. Chodroff, Carol Cracked Justice: Addressing the Unfairness in Cocaine Sentencing. Statement to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary. Human Rights Watch. URL accessed on 2008-03-09.
  11. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named VonBuelow-ImNamenDesStaates
  12. Barker SA, Monti JA and Christian ST (1981). N,N-Dimethyltryptamine: An endogenous hallucinogen. In International Review of Neurobiology, vol 22, pp. 83–110; Academic Press, Inc.
  13. Chotima Poeaknapo. Mammalian morphine: de novo formation of morphine in human cells. Med Sci Monit, 2005; 11(5): MS6–17
  16. Medical Uses of Illicit Drugs
  17. as a brain booster for Parkinson's?
  18. Tell FDA Some Hallucinogens May Aid Alcoholics, terminally ill and psychiatric patients
  19. Pieper, Werner (2003). DopePollution. Zwischen Farm und Pharmageddon (in German), Werner Pieper and the Grüne Kraft.
  20. the pleasures of alcohol, with no downsides
  21. Churches in St. Lucia Work Together Against Drugs
  22. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Trebach-LibertyAndDrugs
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki