I suppose I haven’t really heard the opposing facts.
The opposing argument is about which methods prevent or alleviate the most harm. Not only does prohibition fail to stop the spread of drugs, it increases the harm by discouraging addicts from seeking help and by giving organized crime a lucrative market. One wouldn’t just legalize or decriminalize drugs and leave it at that. One would do this as part of a strategy of treating drugs as a public health issue and not a law enforcement issue.
I just don’t see how it would be implemented and controlled. By public health do you mean a drug addict can walk in to a hospital and receive free drugs or would it be a holistic approach which includes counselling and treatment? Funded by the tax payer?
I don’t exactly see drug addicts lining up for help. Of the people I know or knew who took recreational drugs, all did it because it was fun. Not because “they were addicted”. They could stop any time by why should they?
Will drugs be available from a legitimate recreational drug store at a cheaper rate than available from drug dealers (sans treatment) the same as cigarettes and alcohol? Will the sellers be licensed?
I’m all for for it if it works. Show me how. Give me some of that critical thinking and evidence.
Please explain it to me.