The right to life also means the right to die. Or “The State! Be honest!"
From the book by Andrey Sokolov, "Economics and Human Rights"
"Economics and Human Rights" is a book about how the observance of human rights affects the economy.
Drugs. The right to life also means the right to die.
Another breeding ground for crime, another hole in the budget, another waste instead of income, another violation of the human right to life and health - drugs.
In this chapter, we will look at some of the methods of dealing with drugs and the criminal drug trade. These measures, on the one hand, make it possible to fully observe human rights, and on the other hand, they reduce the number of drug addicts and illegal drug trafficking, prevent the emergence of new hard drugs and deprive the drug cortels of income and sales markets.
These measures, despite being mild and unconventional, made it possible to achieve what was not possible to achieve by harsh police methods for many years. Namely: a decrease in the number of drug addicts, an increase in the number of medical visits to narcologists, an increase in the number of drug refusals, a decrease in the number of "first-timers", a decrease in overdose mortality, a decrease in the incidence of AIDS, hepatitis, and tuberculosis.
We will analyze this using the examples of countries that have partially or completely legalized drugs or have applied such a method of struggle as decriminalizing drug use.
It is important to understand that drugs are not only heroin or marijuana, but also tobacco and alcohol, freely sold in every supermarket. These drugs are legalized almost everywhere. The rest are outlawed almost everywhere for many years. And for many years, the ban has not brought any economic benefit to countries and in no way reduced the number of drug addicts or drug trafficking. This is called the Sisyphean work.
And this despite the fact that illegal marijuana or LSD has less social harm than alcohol. Addiction to "ecstasy", hallucinogens or marijuana, develops to a much lesser extent than tobacco or alcohol.
Drug trafficking is, on the one hand, huge budget expenditures on catching drug addicts and dealers, and on the other hand, it is an excellent breeding ground for crime. The consequences of the ban are well known and have long been tested.
The Global Commission on Narcotic Policy in June 2011 recommended that countries "experiment with the legal regulation of certain types of drugs that can be legalized in order to combat drug trafficking."
What will happen if drugs are legalized?
Then they, like cigarettes or alcohol, will begin to bring income to the country's budget, and not to the pocket of the mafia. The police will not be involved in catching drug addicts for taxpayer money, but in protecting the lives and property of taxpayers.
Can heroin, for example, be legalized?
Heroin is basically a pretty quick death. If a person has the right to life, then he also has the right to interrupt it at will. Otherwise, you need to ban all hunting rifles - you can shoot yourself, all high-rise buildings - you can jump from them and commit suicide, all trains - you can throw yourself under them. And, of course, we need to ban gas stoves and the sale of ropes in stores.
Will everyone rush to buy heroin if it can be sold legally? Of course not. Especially if lighter forms of drugs are available. Will everyone rush to sell heroin? Also no. Because they only sell what they buy. What is in demand.
Not all people buy legal drugs - alcohol and tobacco. And even fewer people buy strong alcohol. So why on earth would people rush to buy or sell legalized heroin?
But advertising drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, is certainly not worth it. Here the ban is fully justified.
As for soft drugs, since drugs such as alcohol and nicotine are legalized, the ban on legalizing marijuana, LSD or ecstasy looks rather strange and deceitful.
Let us analyze the statistics of drug bans and permits in different countries, because, as in the case of prostitution, there are already examples of drug legalization or decriminalization.
In Australia, as in the United States, there is a difference in legislation for different territories. In the capital, you can freely store 25 g of marijuana (exceeding is punishable by a fine of $ 100), and in the state of Queensland you can get 15 years in prison for a couple of cigarettes. In Western Australia, the possession and private use of marijuana is permitted (up to 2 plants, a fine for exceeding). In South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, possession of hashish is not considered a major offense.
The penalties are also different. In Western Australia, people are sent for counseling with psychologists. In New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, possession and use of cannabis is considered a criminal offense, but more often the perpetrators are sent not to prison, but to study or treatment.
Since 2016, the medical use of marijuana has been approved everywhere in Australia.
The Austrian Narcotic Substances Act 1998 distinguishes between drug manufacturers and drug users. The punishment depends on which group the offender belongs to. Drug use is decriminalized, which means it is not a criminal offense. However, possession, even for personal purposes, is punishable by a fine or arrest for six months. It is allowed to use marijuana for medical or scientific purposes.
In 2009, marijuana in minimal doses was decriminalized.
In 2003, the Belgian parliament passed a law to legalize weak drugs. You can smoke marijuana as well as drink alcohol. However, if, as a result, a person violates public order, then violation of the law in an altered state of consciousness will automatically add a more serious drug article to the hooliganism.
Smoking in public places is prohibited, storage and purchase of more than 3g of marijuana, but one plant can be grown. The use of cannabis for medical purposes is also permitted.
Despite the ban on smoking in public places, marijuana can be smoked while driving.
In Brazil, marijuana is illegal, but possession (as well as possession of any drugs) does not face prison. In 2006, the country passed a law that introduced alternative forms of punishment for drug addicts. Drug dealers and drug addicts are subject to fundamentally different punishments.
Since 2002, possession of small quantities of cannabis and its derivatives has not been a crime. But the police can arrest marijuana users, for example, in the presence of children. In the same year, the UK authorities moved marijuana from class B to class C, which includes, for example, steroids.
Shirley Kramer, President of the Royal Society of Health, said: “The time has come for a new approach, and we must recognize that drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal law, and that those who illegally use drugs need treatment and support, not punishment."
The report, titled "A New Approach to Drugs," argues that criminal prosecution of drug addicts is ineffective and the threat of punishment only increases the addict's chances of dying from an overdose and is an obstacle to drug addicts seeking medical help. The report's authors call for the adoption of the Portuguese system in Britain, when people caught using drugs are offered help, rather than punished.
Since 1993, Venezuela has replaced prison with "social measures" for those caught with two grams of cocaine or 20 grams of cannabis. Such people arrested for possession of drugs for personal use are sent for treatment.
The medical use of cannabis has been legal since 2007. As of April 2016, 647 patients were receiving cannabis. Possession of marijuana may or may not be legal, depending on the amount of the herb and local laws. Most of the laws of various "states" in Germany allow you to store up to 5g of marijuana.
German police do not prosecute citizens for possession of "small quantities" for personal consumption. But he can be detained for smoking marijuana in public places, at school or in the presence of children.
Since 2011, the Danish Medical Agency has allowed three varieties of medical cannabis to be used by patients with cancer or multiple sclerosis.
Since 1994, Israel has allowed the use of marijuana for people who suffer from cancer, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, chronic pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Since 1992, the use of marijuana has been an administrative offense in Spain. For keeping "weed" or smoking on the street, a fine of up to 300 euros is possible. Possession of more than 40g of cannabis, distribution and cultivation of marijuana is a criminal offense (from 1 to 3 years).
It is forbidden to smoke cannabis in public places, but there are specialized clubs for marijuana lovers, of which there are about 500 in Spain.
Marijuana is illegal in Cambodia. Medical or culinary uses are not prosecuted. The local restaurants openly sell Happy Pizza with hemp, and the markets offer “fun” pastries.
Since 2001, smoking marijuana has been legal for medical purposes. The grass can be grown legally if there is a doctor's prescription and a special permit issued to patients with various forms of cancer, AIDS, arthritis and multiple sclerosis. In Vancouver, Canada, medical marijuana is prescribed for people who complain of poor sleep. In mid-2015, there were about 80 stores in the city selling hemp.
Since 2015, it has been allowed to store up to 20g of hemp and grow up to 20 plants for personal use.
Possession of small quantities of marijuana and a range of other drugs has been decriminalized since 2015. It is not a crime to have 3.5 grams of cannabis, two grams of other drugs, or two ecstasy pills. Exceeding is punishable by a fine of 50 to 125 euros.
In Mexico since 2009, the presence of 5g of marijuana, 2g of opium, 500mg of cocaine, 50mg of heroin, 40mg of amphetamine and up to 0.015mg of LSD is not a crime.
Drugs have been formally classified as "light" and "heavy" drugs since 1972.
The storage of 30g "light" drugs is decriminalized. "Hard" drugs are prohibited. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and another 100 cities, there are legal coffee shops licensed to sell marijuana, hallucinogenic mushrooms and other soft drugs. The goal of legal coffee shops is to compete with illegal hard drugs.
However, possession, production and sale of any drug is illegal. This is a bit inconsistent and one might say hypocritical. But coffee shops and their clients, who want to be law-abiding, manage to fit into a 30-gram "Procrustean bed." People over the age of 18 can buy up to five grams of hemp daily from coffee shops. Buying drugs on the street is illegal.
Since 1988, it has been allowed to store for personal use up to two grams of cocaine or heroin and up to 10 grams of hemp.
Portugal decriminalized drugs in 2001. What does it mean? Drugs remain illegal, but possession for personal use will not lead to jail. Even heroin. At the same time, the sale of drugs is prohibited.
Portugal is allowed to store one gram of heroin, MDMA or amphetamine, two grams of cocaine, and up to 25 grams of hemp. If such stocks are found, the police do not arrest the drug addict, but send him to an “explanatory commission”, which consists of lawyers, social workers and psychologists.
The Commission can make one of the following decisions:
- fine in the amount of 25 to 150 euros;
- prohibit occupying positions that involve responsibility for someone else's life;
- prohibit visiting nightclubs;
- prohibit traveling abroad;
- prohibit the carrying of weapons;
- to confiscate all personal stocks of drugs;
- to deprive state benefits, if any (a very serious measure, by the way, since the amount of the benefit is close to the size of the minimum wage, i.e. it can be a full-fledged source of personal income).
The measures are quite reasonable - the main task of the commission is to try to motivate a person to receive treatment and to make the life of people with whom he, one way or another, communicates, safe.
At the same time and everywhere in Portugal, dozens of state centers for the assistance, detoxification and psychological rehabilitation of drug addicts operate. Opiate addicts are treated with methadone and buprenorphine substitution treatment. Regional reintegration programs conduct regular trainings for former drug addicts, help with finding work and housing. Portuguese pharmacies exchange used syringes for new ones free of charge, as well as give out a set of several syringes, a condoms, cotton wool and alcohol and rehabilitation brochures. Similar kits are handed out on the streets.
The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal has led to a sharp decline in HIV infections, overdose deaths and heroin addicts.
Again! The decriminalization of all drugs has led to a decrease in the number of people using the most heavy drug in question, heroin. In the late 1990s, 100,000 people in Portugal used heroin, now there are 50,000, many of whom are trying to recover.
Until 2001, Portugal was one of the most problematic areas in the European Union in relation to drug addiction and was the leader in the EU in terms of the number of HIV-infected among drug addicts. The highest percentage of AIDS deaths in the EU was also recorded here.
For 20 years, the Portuguese authorities have been fighting drug addiction using standard forceful methods. Of course, no success. And then the authorities decided to act humanely and at the same time revolutionary. The state decriminalized the possession of any kind of drugs and began to fight disease, drug addiction, and not people. This is logical. After all, no one fights with a patient with a stomach ulcer or flu. Fight disease.
By the number of taboo topics in society, by the number of prohibitions, one can fairly accurately judge the degree of maturity of the society. And the more worthy the position and actions of the Portuguese authorities look like against the background of other countries.
The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal was preceded by extensive work of the commission to develop a national strategy in the fight against drugs.
The measures taken made it possible to achieve the main goal - the problems and dangers became much less both for drug addicts themselves and for other people.
And all that was necessary - think of each inhabitant as a person. A person who has the right to life and health. A person who has the right to independently manage his life.
What did this lead to?
Portugal has not become a Mecca for heroin addicts, has not fallen into a coma.
And here are the numbers:
HIV cases among drug addicts in 2001 (only recorded) - 1000. In 2012 - only 56!
Deaths from drugs: in 2001 80 people, in 2012 - significantly less - 16 people.
Criminal cases related to drug-related crimes (and budgetary expenses for conducting these cases, of course). In 2001, there were 14,000 cases. In 2012 - 6,000 cases - the budget was saved by more than half.
Single-use drug use in Portugal has declined across all age groups. This is especially important in the 15-24 age group. At this age, "single use" means "tried or not." This means that there are fewer people who have tried drugs in Portugal, thanks to decriminalization.
Having stopped stigmatizing drug addicts as criminals, the authorities have significantly increased the number of those who voluntarily choose treatment.
And the money for treatment was safely left - after all, they stopped spending it on a useless police pursuit and trials of drug addicts.
Instead of spending on the "stick", the Portuguese authorities decided to spend money on the development of substitution programs and rehabilitation centers. And the result was not long in coming.
Drug overdose in Portugal currently kills 3 people per million adults per year - one of the lowest rates in Europe. (In Russia, overdose kills about 100 thousand people a year, that is, more than a thousand people per million of the adult population).
An indirect confirmation of the success of decriminalization was the fact that now, 15 years after the adoption of this reasonable decision, not a single Portuguese politician, in pursuit of votes, stutters about a return to past violent anti-drug practices. People should be tried to heal, not imprisoned for their habits.
The United States has been actively fighting both prostitution and drugs for many years. USA is struggling unsuccessfully, spending huge amounts of money on this struggle. Tracking, capture, courts, prisons ...
These funds may be used for other good purposes ...
The US National Institutes of Health has long been recommending the use of cannabis for certain diseases.
Since 1996, the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont have passed laws allowing the use of marijuana as a medicinal product.
Under President Barack Obama, the situation has moved in this direction even more. At least with regard to marijuana (cannabis). By 2012-2014, some states legalized marijuana, and some states stopped prosecuting for possession.
Marijuana was legalized, but the sky did not collapse. Protectors of morality and lovers of prohibitions are in shock.
In the state of Washington in the second quarter of 2016, according to The News Tribune, the volume of marijuana sales amounted to $ 212 million. The similar figure for strong alcohol is $ 249 million. But marijuana is much safer than strong alcohol, both for others people and for the drug user.
The black marijuana market in Washington state has virtually disappeared, because why break the law if the same can be done legally. Meanwhile, the tax on the sale of marijuana in this state is quite high - 37%. So By legalizing marijuana, Washington State earned almost $ 80 million in 3 months of 2016. This is a very good addition to the budget, which can be spent on projects useful for residents ...
According to the calculations of economists in Washington state, by 2019 taxes from the sale of marijuana will bring about $ 1.3 billion to the budget. To the state budget controlled by citizents. Not drug lords and drug dealers.
Even the partial legalization of marijuana in the United States has given impetus to the development of new businesses, the creation of new legal jobs, the expansion of the comfort of state residents, an increase in tax revenues to the budget and a reduction illegal drug trafficking.
According to Business Insider, hemp and marijuana are used in the manufacture of food and gum. Vaporizers are being developed for those who need marijuana as a medicine. Specialized media appeared. Legalization has led to the emergence of new professions.
But it was not always so. As usual, it all started with prohibitions and restrictions. In 1937, under Franklin Roosevelt, a law was passed that prohibited the production, purchase and storage of cannabis (it was allowed to be used only for scientific or medical purposes).
For the first time, the use of marijuana for recreation and entertainment was allowed in the states of Colorado and Washington in 2012. Usually, the state uses a referendum procedure to resolve such issues. Referendums legalized marijuana in Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia (where Washington is the capital of the United States). In Oregon, you cannot grow more than four cannabis bushes, in the District of Columbia, you can smoke or exchange, but you cannot sell.
In 2012, vending machines for the sale of marijuana appeared on the beaches of California. The Los Angeles Times estimated the Los Angeles Times' annual turnover of marijuana jambs at $ 6 billion in California.
Former US President Barack Obama considers marijuana a "vice" and a "bad habit", which, however, does not differ much from cigarettes or alcohol. But under US federal law, marijuana is still illegal.
Marijuana has been legalized since 2014 and is sold in specialty pharmacies. The main goal is to fight drug cartels. President Jose Mujica said that the law would deprive drug dealers of income and allow people to use hard drugs less often.
For the sake of fighting the drug business, they decided to sell cannabis in Uruguay cheaper than from dealers - at one dollar per gram. For comparison: in Russia and many European countries, the cost of one gram on the illegal market starts from 10-15 dollars.
Every Uruguayan over 18 years old can register in the database and buy up to 40g of cannabis per month. Hemp will be produced by registered companies and sold by licensed pharmacies. Each pharmacy has decided to install fingerprint scanners to identify registered customers.
Residents of Uruguay were allowed to grow up to six hemp bushes at home, but no more than 480g of "grass" can be harvested from them per year. By August 2015, 5.2 thousand individual growers (marijuana farmers) had registered with the local Institute for the Regulation and Control of Marijuana.
Uruguayans can join clubs of 15-45 people to grow up to 99 plants a year together. In 2016, about 20 such associations of "gardeners" were registered in the country.
In Uruguay, two licensed companies were established that began to professionally cultivate and produce marijuana for local pharmacies. They can grow up to four tons of marijuana per year. At the same time in Uruguay it is prohibited to advertise both the sale and smoking of cannabis.
In the capital of Denmark, Copenhagen, the Self-Governing Commune "Free City of Christiania" is located. She lives by her own laws - cars, weapons, hard drugs, photography are prohibited here, but cannabinoids are allowed.
In 2010, the Czech Republic adopted a law according to which anyone can have up to 1g of cocaine, 1.5g of heroin, 2g of pervitin (methamphetamine), 5g of hashish and 15g of marijuana without consequences. Since 2013, it has been legal to sell marijuana in pharmacies in the Czech Republic on a prescription. It is also allowed to grow up to five hemp bushes and up to 40 hallucinogenic mushrooms at home.
The prices, in connection with the adoption of liberal legislation, have dropped significantly, depending on the type of drug, by 30–40%.
According to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Czech youth are the EU leader in marijuana smoking. At least once a year, "weed" is consumed by about 28% of Czechs under 24 years old. In second place are the Spaniards 23%.
In 2005, the Chilean authorities decriminalized the use of any drug, including marijuana, for personal and private purposes. Those who are caught with "weed" can be fined, sent to compulsory work or rehabilitation.
In the 2008 referendum, 68% of the Swiss voted to officially sell heroin to drug addicts by prescription.
The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador states that drug use is a medical problem, not a crime. The country is allowed to store for personal consumption 10g of cannabis or hashish, up to four grams of opium, 100 milligrams of heroin, five grams of cocaine, 80 milligrams of methamphetamines or MDMA (ecstasy), as well as 0.020 milligrams of LSD (there are discrepancies in grams in different sources, but the essence not in grams, but in principle).
Since 2015, a law has come into force in the country that allows you to carry up to two ounces of cannabis (56 grams) and grow no more than five cannabis bushes.
Cannabis was used for medicinal purposes 5 thousand years ago. And in the Middle Ages, British Queen Victoria used her to treat menstrual pain.
Marijuana for medical purposes and in limited quantities for personal use, with a ban on use in public places, is legal in Macedonia, Croatia, Romania, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Turkey, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, United Kingdom and Germany.
Among the diseases for which it is possible to prescribe funds from the category of mild narcotic drugs are cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis and some other diseases with a poor prognosis.
I believe that the reader will find a somewhat inconsistent position of the authorities to trust an adult to create goods and services, to raise children, to wait and demand from him to pay taxes, but at the same time prohibit him to dispose of his own body, health and life. This is very similar to slavery.
An adult may well decide for himself whether to take drugs or not. The state does not have a right to interfere with a person's personal life and choice.
As for underage residents, an extra ban only creates a temptation. Resistance to prohibition may not turn off, but rather push adolescents to drug use. This is the law of adolescent psychology.
Years of bans, police raids, repressive laws and prisons have not reduced the number of drug addicts in the population. Money wasted, time wasted, health and economic damage was done. It's time to think about the fact that if the decision did not lead to the expected results, then it means that it was wrong. But for this you need to think, admit your mistakes, change your strategy of behavior. Is the government capable of this? Or is it easier and more accustomed to punish than to think?
The illegal status of drugs only strengthens crime economically, which inevitably leads to corruption in power. As long as there is demand, there will be supply, there will be a market. Legal a market or illegal.
The economies of the countries spend a lot of money to fight against what their own prohibitive laws gave rise to.
Taxpayers are forced to pay for the whims of advocates of public good and morality who enact prohibitive laws. And the costs of taxpayers are enormous with a very scanty result, at best.
The taxpayer pays for the costs of the police, lawyers, courts, prisons, and of course the salaries and expenses of drug lawmakers.
As a result, the law-abiding citizen bears an excessive tax burden, while the budget and legislators ignore the proceeds from legal drug trafficking.
According to some estimates, the global volume of drug trafficking is $ 300-352 billion per year.
Legal drug trafficking would generate income not only in the form of sales taxes or taxes on workers who legalized their jobs in the "drug industry." Legalization would lead to a decrease in the number of prisoners - this is not only budget savings, but also additional taxpayers with a normal legal income.
Legalization would drastically reduce the emergence of new drugs, because it is the bans that prompt drug dealers to search for and synthesize new substances. The prohibition of some drugs automatically leads to the emergence of new ones, sometimes more terrible, but which have not yet been banned. When the usual drugs are legalized, there is no special need to invent something new, to try something new.
Legalization will increase the chances of drug addicts' comorbidities being treated. While the prohibition of drugs leads to an increase in the number of patients with severe diseases (AIDS, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, etc.). And these patients can infect not only drug addicts, but also non-drug users.
The legal drug is easier to study. Prohibitions make it difficult to study a drug, find ways to treat drug addiction, and develop subtypes of drugs that are safer for humans and society.
According to the representative of the Latvian State Police Dairis Anuchin, when in 2014 the price of "spice" in Latvia equaled the price of marijuana, "spice" consumers began to use safer marijuana.
The policy of prohibitions failed to reduce the number of drug addicts, as well as to reduce drug crime. At the same time, the position of drug addicts outside the law makes it difficult for them to access medical care. Drug addiction is a disease, along with tobacco smoking and alcoholism. There are special doctors - narcologists who treat such patients. Other doctors treat other medical conditions, such as obesity or sexually transmitted diseases. But neither a fat person, nor an alcoholic, nor an indiscriminate patient in sexual relations risk criminal prosecution or the label of a criminal. An alcoholic can safely come to a narcologist and receive medical assistance. An obese patient can safely come to a gastroenterologist or endocrinologist and get help. Receiving medical care for a drug addict is always associated with the risk of arrest. Those. the alcoholic and heroin addict have the same disease - drug addiction. But one patient has trouble-free access to doctors, another may get problems. This medical care is also "only for whites". The discrimination "by disease" is obvious.
Addiction is a disease. It must be treated, and not driven by prohibitions of sick people into a criminal leper colony.
Prohibition laws on drugs lack any logic. It is enough to compare marijuana or "ecstasy" (MDMA) and alcohol. From a medical point of view, from a safety point of view, it is wiser to allow marijuana than alcohol. But in laws the opposite is true. This violates the principle of proportionality between harm and punishment.
Fatalities from the use of marijuana have not been reported anywhere in the world, unlike alcohol. Even computer (gaming) addiction is more dangerous than marijuana, although it is legal. Every year, in South Korea alone, several dozen deaths are recorded as a result of computer games.
Shopaholism is also an addiction that inflicts enormous material damage on a person. And it is also legal, although the destructive effect of this type of addiction, both on the person himself and on those around him, can lead to such consequences as a fire with human victims, the destruction of a family, homelessness, and bankruptcy.
It is useful to know that absolutely all addictions are based on the same biochemical mechanism. In all cases of addiction, a person inflicts one or another harm on himself. In all cases, there is a withdrawal symptom. But alcohol, nicotine, computer games and shops are legal. It turns out that some patients are worthy of attention and treatment, while others are only worthy of prison.
This is hypocrisy. And this is discrimination.
Plastic surgery is sometimes no less dangerous and disabling than drugs, but legal.
Professional sports is legal. But that disability for athletes. (However, since the days of gladiatorial battles).
Sex reassignment is legal, although the number of surgical and hormonal interventions in the body is huge. The risk of complications is high, patients are forced to take hormones for life.
The modeling business demands thinness and diets from its employees, which often leads to anorexia, which ends in death in 5-7% of cases. But the modeling business is legal.
People are generally rational and generally choose healthy lifestyles, avoiding radical ways of getting pleasure that form addiction. If all drugs are legalized, the addict will try to choose the one that, with a similar effect, will bring him less harm.
The legalization of drugs will allow legal pharmaceutical companies, paying taxes, to produce cleaner, and therefore safer drugs. This will make it possible to invest money in “happiness pills” - drugs that are safe or less hazardous to health, with minimization of harm to health and minimization of such negative effects as, for example, aggression.
In this case, the "pill of happiness" will not refer to narcotic substances, addictive or withdrawal. But it will improve the psychological state of a person.
Interviewing people with various types of addiction speaks about one thing. People are looking for a way to feel happy. And they have every right to do so. Someone is looking for happiness in shopping, someone in a book, someone in science, and someone in alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, computer games or hiking trips. Everyone has the right to make mistakes and take a dangerous path. At the same time, the modern development of science is such that only a ban on drugs prevents scientists from inventing safe "pills of happiness" that will not only help people, but also reduce the level of aggression and crime in society.
Legalizing even hard drugs like heroin, and providing heroin addicts with sterile syringes and a clean injection site under medical supervision will reduce the number of overdose deaths, the number of AIDS-infected people, patients with hepatitis B and C, and other diseases that are dangerous to others. The creation of such drug use rooms is no longer news - since 1998, such facilities have been allowed, for example, in Germany. And the world did not collapse.
As a result of the legalization of drugs, not a trace of the drug mafia will remain, just as not a single bootlegger-mafioso has remained in the United States after the abolition of "Prohibition".
According to The Economist: “History has shown the futility of violent drug control. The destruction of coca plantations in Peru has led to an increase in plantings in Colombia. Crops were destroyed in Colombia, and coca production in Peru increased again. Smuggling across the Mexican border has increased following the suppression of traffic across the Caribbean. Even a short-term shortage of traditional drugs leads to the proliferation of surrogates that are more hazardous to health. The war on drugs in Latin America has radicalized the local underworld, corrupted governments and law enforcement, and overwhelmed the penitentiary system. At the same time, the main task of reducing the supply of drugs to the United States was not solved. "
The reader has the right to ask - why will legalization lead to a decrease in drug traffickers? "It's so profitable."
However, the “profitability” of the illegal drug trade is just another myth. One of the myths that surround the drug trade. The myth of drug dealers' super profits.
According to the data cited by economist S. Levitt and sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh, only a little more than 2% of people involved in drug trafficking have super-profits. At the top, bonzes, drug lords. Ordinary street vendors earn paltry sums.
What should you look for in this study in relation to the topic of drug legalization?
A lot of people are employed in the drug business. Only one mafia clan in Chicago, described by Levitt and Sudhir Venkatesh, had 120 leaders of various divisions and gangs, 5,300 street vendors and controllers receiving a permanent “salary” and about 20,000 distributors on a “fee” basis (no permanent salary).
With the legalization of drugs, these 25,300 people would benefit from legalization. Those. all sellers would want to work legally. Only 120 managers could object, for they would have lost quite a lot in income. But 25,300 people of their subordinates, on the contrary, would have received an increase.
The salary of a street drug dealer in Chicago, according to Sudhir Venkatesh, is only $ 3 and 30 cents an hour. The monthly salary is no more than $ 150-300. The earnings of workers "on fees" are even lower. The benefits package for all workers in the “street” segment is, on average, two arrests and six serious injuries per year, not counting a 25% risk of death during the year.
This is probably why street drug dealers and gangsters asked Sudhir Venkatesh, a university sociologist, to look for them "good jobs" at the university. By “good work,” they meant the job of a janitor. After all, the minimum wage for a janitor in Chicago is $ 10 per hour, i.e. three times their salary on the street.
Even the income of the supervisors of the street vendors, the “deputies” of the gang leader, is only $ 700 a month or, according to Sudhir Venkatesh, about $ 7 an hour. Those. also less income of the janitor at the university.
Only the very top of the Chicago drug gangs received from 100 to 500 thousand dollars in income per person per year. This is a total of 120 people.
The gang described by Levitt and Sudhir Venkatesh traded in crack, a rather dangerous form of cocaine. But she could just as well trade legal marijuana, ecstasy or LSD, and even cocaine. And pay taxes.
Is it bad to sell cocaine?
Of course it's bad.
And selling alcohol is bad.
And no one forces the reader to either sell or consume alcohol. This is his personal choice. His right.
And every other person has exactly the same choice.
In July 2014, the World Health Organization published a report on the fight against AIDS. The section of the report entitled “Recommended Decriminalization Practices” states:
Countries should strive to develop legislation to decriminalize injecting and other drug use, thereby reducing incarceration.
Countries should prohibit compulsory treatment for people who use drugs, including injecting drugs.
This radical change in the position of the UN in comparison with the UN Convention of 1988, which proclaimed the need to criminalize both the production and consumption of drugs, only confirms the correctness of the arguments presented in this book.
In 2014, the private organization Global Commission on Drug Policy presented a report in New York in which it proposed to legalize the use and possession of all psychoactive substances, except crack cocaine and desomorphine, and begin to regulate the circulation of psychoactive drugs similarly nicotine and alcohol. Indeed, from the point of view of medicine, narcology, tobacco or alcohol is the same drug as marijuana or heroin, etc. Moreover, alcohol often leads to very serious crimes. But it is legalized. The less socially dangerous LSD, marijuana or ecstasy are not legal.
Thus, in reality we are not talking about the legalization of drugs - they have long been legalized in the form of alcohol and nicotine, but about the harm caused by illegal drugs.
Illegal drug trafficking does not bring taxes to the budget.
Illegal drug trafficking leads to spending of budgetary funds.
Illegal drugs lead to an increase in crime and an increase in the incidence of deadly infectious diseases.
A selective ban on drugs is a violation of a person's right to life and health. If a person has the right to kill himself with alcohol or tobacco, then why does he not have the right to do it with other drugs?
One of the biggest problems in drug trafficking is handicraft and lack of standardization. And the lesser evil in this case is chalk in an "ecstasy" tablet instead of MDMA. It is much worse when, instead of one substance, a completely different, more dangerous substance appears in the drug dose.
If you interview people who use alcohol, tobacco, and even more marijuana or ecstasy, they will say about the same thing - this helps them to relax (relieve stress), have fun, cope with loneliness (facilitate communication) and, in the end - feel happy.
Perhaps this is the biggest secret and most obvious reason for addiction. People want to feel happy.
Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on new drugs for the common cold or flatulence. And none of them thinks of making a simple medicine "for happiness." Although all the molecules of "happiness" are more or less known: serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin.
Thousands of new products and tastes are invented, more and more new forms of entertainment, psychological training, and sexual practices are being invented. Instead of a simple "pill of happiness".
And since there is Viagra, which is designed only to increase the age of pleasure, to prolong the sex life for men, then isn't it time to make a pill of "happiness" for all unhappy or lonely people.
In talking about drugs and prostitution, I would like to discuss a few more aspects, using the arguments of opponents of legalization and moralists, illustrating the hypocrisy and duplicity of these arguments and in some way emphasizing their falsity, bringing the situation to a logical absurdity.
Drugs cause the release of "pleasure mediators" - serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin. The same thing happens when having sex or having a delicious meal.
But for some, delicious food is teeming with cholesterol, for someone with sugar, for someone with carbohydrates, for someone with additives. Chips, soda, sweets ... Maybe it makes sense to arrest the glutton? Overweight people?
People get pleasure from sex, which is accompanied by the release of exactly the same pleasure mediators as drugs. And it's not hard to see that most people have a regular need for sex. This is at least a psychological addiction. Is it wise to prohibit sex? Maybe vibrators and other sex toys should be banned and their manufacturers outlawed?
The prohibitionists brandish the argument about the drug-induced consciousness change.
But they forget that legal meditation, listening to music, attending a football match or rock concert, all kinds of trainings and psychotherapeutic practices, reading literature, dancing, medications (for example, antidepressants), alcohol, advertising, propaganda, studying at a school or institute, religious beliefs and rituals also change consciousness.
Consciousness is changed at the moment of sleep. Consciousness is changed in somnambulists who calmly walk in sleep. What needs to be outlawed? Sleep or somnambulist?
And there is also a professional deformation of consciousness. For example, from the military, police, prosecutors, teachers, doctors, mathematicians, programmers, gamers, athletes. Following the logic of moralists, all of them must be outlawed.
And do moralists know that in order to talk about a change in consciousness, it would be good to understand what consciousness is and what is normal consciousness? But neither philosophers nor psychiatrists have a definition of the norm for consciousness.
But there are definitions of deviations. But you need to "deviate" from something, ie. from the norm, which does not exist.
Is the consciousness of monks and nuns altered? Is it legal?
I would very much like to turn the seething legislative energy of the deputies towards people with more socially dangerous changes in consciousness. Constant change. For anti-Semitism, Nazism, racism, fascism and any chauvinism have led to the death of many more people than all drugs in their entire existence. If someone doubts this, he should talk to Armenians, Jews, Germans.
While recognizing a person's right to life, it is necessary to recognize it in full, including all his habits, occupation, outlook on life, and also it is necessary to recognize the person's right to death. Otherwise, the right to life turns from a right into an obligation.
While recognizing the right to die, you will have to recognize the right to harm your health. However, all this is already recognized, only hypocritically and not in full. Stores are full of alcohol and cigarettes, which are more fatal than "ecstasy" or marijuana. Are full of foods that have a negative impact on health. These products even led to the emergence of a new profession - a nutritionist, and at the same time, the emergence of a fashion for a healthy lifestyle, the creation of new "healthy" products. Why is it impossible to assume that the legalization of drugs will not lead to widespread drug addiction, but to an active desire of people to live without these goods, without drugs.
Ultimately, if we prohibit drugs, then we need to prohibit buns, mayonnaise and cars. After all, more people die in road accidents than drugs.
If we do not recognize the human right to risk and death, then it is
necessary to ban aircraft and the profession of a pilot, and at the same
time a sailor, driver and railway worker. And, of course, prohibit the
life-threatening professions of firefighters, military and police.
Moralists will immediately say that the police and firefighters are good for the community.
Well. Society includes prostitutes, their clients, and drug addicts. Are the police helpful to them?
And it is even more important that moralists, with a light cheating movement, substitute human rights for the interests of society. And at the same time, they will chauvinistically declare some people "useless".
According to the BBC, 120 tons of cocaine were used in the UK in 2009. Police methods managed to withdraw only 1.3% of this amount. And huge taxpayer money was spent on this. And the efficiency, the efficiency of the work of the repressive apparatus is only 1.3%. A business operating with such efficiency would have gone bankrupt long ago.
What part of society uses drugs if 120 tons of cocaine are sold per year?
How much taxes could be obtained by legalizing their sale? How many rehabilitation centers to build, how many educational anti-drug programs to conduct, how many safe analogues "for a high" to invent in order to replace cocaine with a "pill of happiness" that would be no more dangerous than a vitamin?
It is believed that drugs are unacceptable in society, but then why 9 out of 10 banknotes in the UK carry traces of cocaine. What percentage of the public considers cocaine acceptable? Have the authorities remained in the minority?
According to the UN, in 2008, 16 million people in the world used cocaine. Are these 16 million part of society? Should their interests and point of view be considered? Or are they not human? Are they disenfranchised?
World cocaine turnover in 2008 was $ 55 billion. All of this has enriched drug cortels, not budgets.
If at the point of manufacture a pound of cocaine costs $ 100, and at the point of sale - $ 50,000, what would be the budget income at a 20% VAT rate?
What good and useful could be done with this money, instead of wasting taxpayers' money to seize only 1.3% of cocaine turnover?
The Declaration of Human Rights says nothing about society. And what is society? Those who have used 120 tons of the drug a year? Those who caught these people? Those who do not use drugs? Those who use legal drugs - alcohol and tobacco?
Society is a myth invented by moralists in order to appropriate the votes of those people who did not give them permission to do so. Those. an appeal to society is a lie and a forgery.
In Nepal, marijuana is banned 364 days a year. Those. it becomes legal one day a year. The concept of Shiva and marijuana for a Hindu is immutable and sacred.
A legal day for marijuana in Nepal is the Shivarotri holiday. Religious Hindu holiday. Hinduism is one of the most widespread religions. Is banning marijuana a violation of a person's right to freedom of religion?
Humanity has come up with many religious rites, for example, sacrifice. If we proceed from the logic “it is always forbidden, but once a year it is possible”, then the question arises - maybe it makes sense to allow human sacrifice once a year?
Probably, the dividing line between “legal - illegal” should be located not where the deputy decides “I want or don’t want”, but where the freedom of one person threatens the freedom of another.
For example, smoking marijuana does not threaten other people's freedoms in any way. Whereas human sacrifice is threatening.
But maybe moralists should follow the path of Islam and ban not only marijuana, but also alcohol? Indeed, in some Muslim countries, alcohol is illegal.
There have been 15 million arrests in the United States since the 1970s for marijuana. At the expense of taxpayers' money, of course. After all, every hour of the work of a policeman, judge, jailer, is paid by the taxpayer.
In 2006, 800,000 people were arrested in the United States for marijuana. Even if each arrest, trial, and other procedures involve the labor of only one policeman, who receives $ 20 an hour, and does not take more than an hour for everything, then this is 1.6 million dollars of taxpayers. But there were two policemen, then there was a judge, bailiffs, etc. And all this lasted for more than one hour. Those. at least 3-5 million taxpayer dollars were spent on these arrests. Couldn't this money have been better spent for the people of the United States?
In California, the illegal marijuana trade was $ 15-20 billion. And only 2-3 billion - legal - 300 thousand residents of California were allowed to use marijuana for medical reasons.
After the approval of marijuana for medical treatment in the state of California, 600 coffee shops were opened in Los Angeles alone. This means that at least 1000 people got legal work and paid taxes on their salaries and businesses.
Full legalization, with a simple extrapolation, will lead to the creation of 10-15 thousand jobs and a tenfold increase in tax revenues.
And only medieval ignorance, stubbornness and hypocrisy of legislators from different countries prevent the full legalization of marijuana, which is safer than tobacco and alcohol.
Hypocrisy in relation to drugs leads to an increase in drug traffic, the proliferation of criminals, and increases the burden on the budget and the taxpayer.
Just one hypocritical DMT ban - dimethyltryptamine - a hallucinogenic drug equated by politicians and legislators in the US and Brazil to heroin.
Why hypocritical? Because research on the use of this drug in the United States has shown that it is harmless even to babies.
Hypocritical, because, despite the ban, this drug is given in the United States and Brazil to children and adults with the full consent of the authorities.
Have you forgotten that it is prohibited yet? The same authorities.
Banned for everyone except the Catholic sect of Santo Daime, which has the right to use it for ritual purposes. This drug is drunk by the parishioners, like the blood of Jesus, like the sacrament.
"God created people equal", but this sect in the eyes of the legislators turned out to be "more equal than the rest."
In the United States, DMT has been allowed for members of the Santo Daima Church since 2009. In Brazil, this church has about 100 parishes and tens of thousands of adepts.
It is no wonder that in a world where some Catholic priests curse drugs, while others officially give it to babies to drink, people find it difficult to find peace, happiness and meaning in life.
And some are looking for God with DMT. Others seek happiness and empathy through "ecstasy". Still others seek relief from pain with marijuana.
The only problem is that the state, which has not helped these people in any way to get rid of pain, find God, love, happiness, forbids them to look for it themselves and calls them criminals.
However, when we talk about religion and drugs, about religion and substances that affect the perception of reality and the change in consciousness, it is not at all necessary to go to the USA or Brazil. It is enough to go to any Christian church.
In 2007, American and Israeli scientists discovered that incense, which is used by clergymen in virtually every liturgical ritual with which the church is "fumigated", which is part of the "nuns" - smoking candles, contains incensol acetate. This substance has an antidepressant effect and is found in frankincense smoke.
It is worth noting that antidepressants are a class of psychoactive substances used in medicine as a medicine. But not everyone is prescribed and sold them. Even alcohol and tobacco are not sold in the store until they reach a certain age. And they fumigate everyone with incense. Both adults and children. Both healthy and sick. And while preaching a sermon ...
Scientists do not yet know addiction to incense occurs. At the same time, it is known that addiction occurs to other antidepressants and that any antidepressant has many side effects.
If a person is taking certain medications, inhaling the antidepressant frankincense can cause unwanted drug interactions and harm the person's health.
Sidney M. Wolfe and Rose-Ellen Hope write about this in Worst Pills, Best Pills: “Antidepressants should only be used for severe depression that cannot be cured by psychotherapy alone. The elderly are especially sensitive to the dangerous effects of antidepressants. These drugs should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. "
For the entire group of antidepressants, which, as it turns out, include frankincense smoke, the following side effects are characteristic.
All antidepressants can cause hypomanic and manic states. This can lead to the development of strong psychotic reactions or require isolation of the patient due to his excessive arousal.
The main side effects and consequences of these effects include: car accidents, disorientation in time and space, delirium, impairment of short-term memory, weakened attention, blurred vision, sexual dysfunction, lowering blood pressure to an unacceptable level, which can result in injury, heart attacks and strokes. Many antidepressants can cause drug-induced parkinsonism. This disease is characterized by the following symptoms: difficulty speaking or swallowing, loss of balance, mask-like face, muscle spasms, tremors of the limbs, and unusual body movements.
Now let's get back to illegal drugs. For example, marijuana or "ecstasy". And let us compare whether they are more dangerous than the widely permitted and used incense. And isn't there hypocrisy? After all, it turns out that within the framework of the worship of one of the main religions, you can use a substance that can cause "manic states" and lead to the development of strong psychotic reactions, but privately using marijuana or "ecstasy" in a disco cannot. Is there a logical contradiction here?
Sometimes there is a feeling that the proponents of prohibitions are shackled by the medieval horror. They think that drug addicts are not really human anymore. Alien, unpleasant, nasty.
But Santo Daima's MDT-using adherents look much more decent and respectable than many of their opponents who oppose the legalization of drugs.
And aren't there completely unpleasant personalities among people who don't use drugs?
Or are highly obese people pleasant? Cancer patients? And some people of Asian appearance are unpleasant. Isn't the disdainful attitude towards drug addicts on the part of prohibitionists banal chauvinism?
Isn't it time to start solving the issue not with bans, but with brain?
To begin with, one should understand that drug addicts are sick people. Including alcoholics and smokers, of course.
As sick as people with obesity, as people with poor eyesight, as people with disabilities.
How many obese people want to lose weight? Many are proud of it and arrange beauty contests for the full.
How many smokers or alcoholics want to be cured? Also no. Winston Churchill is a prime example.
In Vancouver, Canada, convinced of the futility of the prohibitions, they decided to go the other way and created the INSITE clinic, where any addict can come with their dose of the drug, get a clean and well-lit place for the procedure, a clean syringe, a needle, sterile water, an alcohol wipe and even an ambulance medical assistance in case of overdose.
An overdose on the street is death. INSITE is life. After an overdose, 30% of INSITE visitors decide to begin addiction treatment at the ONSITE Clinic, located directly above INSITE.
Will everyone decide to heal? Probably, not. But Winston Churchill was not going to throw whiskey and cigars.
INSITE is a kind of leper colony. After all, lepers in the Middle Ages frightened the inhabitants in the same way as drug addicts now. At the same time, INSITE reduces the risks for these inhabitants to meet a needle contaminated with hepatitis B, C or AIDS by more than half.
Those. providing the drug addict with the possibility of legal and safe dose intake protects the lives of ordinary people!
Perhaps the layman will say - put them all in jail, and the risk will disappear altogether. But this approach has already shown its ineffectiveness. Making the same mistake over and over is a sign of a small mind.
The average man will say - but why save drug addicts and spend money on them? After all, they are economically useless.
But many seriously ill patients with malignant tumors or systemic diseases are also economically useless.
If modern society wants to follow the examples of the despotism of the Spartans and communists, then with whom will we start culling? And most importantly - when will we stop? In Hitler's Germany, they were also engaged in culling ...
If a military man, defending his homeland, thinks something like “I am now defending drug addicts, stupid politicians who allowed this war, a teacher who humiliated me in front of the class ...” - will he be a good defender?
If a police officer, making an arrest of an armed robber in a supermarket, begins to reason: "Well, there is a Hindu here, he smells bad, there is a beggar, there is a too fat aunt, there is a drug addict, and that cashier, it seems, cheated me last week," - will the arrest be successful?
If the doctor at the patient's bedside thinks not about how to cure, but about whether this patient is effective for the economy, whether he is pleasant to him, will the treatment be successful?
Would you like an ambulance visiting your relative first to consider the cost-effectiveness and community benefit of the victim?
Would you like firefighters to ponder these questions before starting to extinguish your home?
But this is exactly how the townsfolk and politicians reason when it comes to drug addiction.
And does the state, which failed to provide a person with a feeling of happiness, have the right to prevent a person from receiving this feeling on their own?
Why the right to freedom of religion allows the use of DMT, but the right to freedom of conscience does not. Why is a believer better for the state than an atheist?
Does the state have the right, constantly resorting to attempts to change consciousness with the help of propaganda, to prohibit a person from changing it to himself with the help of hallucinogens?
Opponents of drugs argue that drugs are bad for health. For example, methamphetamine on the skin and teeth, marijuana on the lungs and respiratory tract, cocaine on the nasal septum. But alcohol and tobacco are also harmful to health. Why, then, is legalization so selective?
Why not be consistent and ban foods like chips, cola, candy?
Why not ban harmful production? For example, work in mines, work in X-ray rooms, silicate production. The list of occupational diseases is very wide!
Why is alcohol legal in countries where part of society is Muslim or Indian sathi, but not marijuana? Following the logic of the "public interest" it should be the other way around. After all, even if you do not take into account the freedom of religion and its postulates, alcohol is much more dangerous. You can die from an alcohol overdose. There have been no deaths from marijuana overdose.
MDMA (ecstasy), banned since 1985. But the deaths from ecstasy were recorded only two per 100 thousand use, while 50 out of 100 thousand drinkers die from alcohol, and 400 out of 100 thousand smokers die from tobacco.
There are 140 million alcoholics in the world. Alcohol kills 2.5 million people every year. But alcohol is a legal drug.
Not a single person has died from marijuana. But marijuana is illegal.
Using "ecstasy" in the Netherlands is equivalent to using heroin, but you can safely buy an "ecstasy" test kit in pharmacies to avoid taking ketamine or another substance disguised as MDTA. After all, everything that is prohibited is not checked. Buying the forbidden is a pig in a poke. What about taking care of taxpayers? After all, we do not take away cars from drivers, although they are potentially dangerous and can kill the taxpayer. We legalize them, check them and establish traffic rules.
According to Dr. Will Corbin, a clinical psychologist at the University of Arizona, the losses to the economy from alcoholism, including treatment for comorbid injuries and illnesses, disability benefits, and problems arising from alcoholism in the family exceed the losses from all other known drugs.
But alcohol is a legal drug and others are not.
In the US alone, drunk drivers kill 11,000 people every year. Alcohol
intoxication in many cases is accompanied by aggression towards other
people, including fights, stabbing and murder. In contrast, the effects of
marijuana or "ecstasy" do not lead to aggression.
But alcohol is a legal drug. And marijuana and "ecstasy" are illegal.
Rehabilitation of patients with alcoholism in the USA is an industry with a turnover of $ 3 billion a year.
Rehabilitation of drug addicts, whose illness is associated with other drugs, is difficult, since the addict himself, a sick person, is outside the law and is afraid to go to the doctor.
It turns out that all drug addicts, except for alcoholic and nicotine addicts, are in a discriminated position. The law and the authorities constantly violate the rights of these people. Alcoholics, for some unknown reason, turn out to be "white people", and those who use "ecstasy", marijuana, LSD or cocaine are "black".
I wonder who invented such "justice", similar to segregation?
How much does the economy lose on this ban?
In Seattle, Washington, the East Laid 1811 Orphanage is operating, allowing the budget to save more than $ 4.5 million a year by cutting medical costs for alcoholic trauma and sobering-up treatment alone.
This shelter provides a studio-style roof for homeless alcoholics. Moreover, alcoholics are given free drinks there, as a result of which alcoholics living in this shelter reduce their alcohol intake, and sometimes even stop drinking altogether. The effectiveness of this “no treatment” method, in terms of the number of people who stopped drinking alcohol, is comparable to the effectiveness of traditional methods of treating alcoholism.
Such legal establishments for drug addicts with other types of addiction could save budget money spent on courts, police and treatment, reduce the level of crime, return people to a healthy life, and reduce the incidence of AIDS, tuberculosis, and hepatitis.
But alcohol is legal, and other drugs are not.
Think about how much money the economy would receive in the form of wages and taxes if the illegal total annual income from the drug trade in the world is estimated at 300-352 billion US dollars.
The supply in the drug trade exactly matches the demand. All this trade turnover is outside the legal economy and does not participate in any way in economic growth and an increase in budget revenues.
350 tons of heroin are consumed worldwide every year. In 2008, Colombia produced 430 tons of cocaine, Peru 302 tons and Bolivia 113 tons. 200 tons of cocaine are exported to Europe every year.
Of course, everything that is produced and brought in is sold. Without paying taxes, without creating legal jobs, virtually no chance for a drug addict to get treatment.
As you can see, such a violation by the state of the human right to life and health leads to sad consequences.
Crime is on the rise.
Corruption is on the rise.
The number of diseases is growing.
Budget expenses are growing.
Moreover, all this has been going on for years. Any firm would go bankrupt under such management.
Do not think that the examples given by European countries or the United States indicate that only these countries have problems. This is not the case. In the developed democracies of North America and Europe, the problems raised in this book are less acute than in other countries. And there are few steps left for these countries to fully respect all human rights. Much less steps than other countries.
This book provides examples and statistics from the EU and the US just for the reason that these countries provide very detailed, complete and open statistics. Also, these countries show most of the examples (experiments) on the observance of human rights that shock the inhabitants of other countries, but contribute to solving long-term problems.
What needs to be done for the full realization of human rights, in accordance with the UN Declaration?
Legalize the sale of drugs, depriving the mafia of their livelihood, receiving tax revenue.
Legalize prostitution. And get income from this, not a loss.
Legalize the right to self-defense, to acquire and carry weapons, incl. pistols.
And to get completely different consequences, which is proved by the many years of experience of the countries that went for it, namely:
Increase the number of jobs, firms, taxpayers.
Reduce crime (by 50% or more).
Reduce the income of crime.
Reduce the incidence of dangerous diseases.
Reduce budget expenses.
Increase budget revenues.
If people from 18-21 years old can elect and be elected, i.e. can influence the lives of many people in this way, why the law prohibits them from influencing their lives and freely choosing - to smoke marijuana or not, to inhale cocaine, to swallow "ecstasy", to work as a prostitute or as a seller? Why is the personal use of drugs and the work of a prostitute more dangerous than the tyrant's stay in power?
After all, the laws that plunge the country into poverty are adopted, as a rule, by the champions of morality, living on the money of taxpayers. Permits for the construction of environmentally hazardous industries are not given by dancers from nightclubs on "ecstasy", not by rastamans and not by girls on the panel. These permits, leading to health problems for the inhabitants of entire cities, give specious politicians in beautiful suits.
Wars are started not by drug addicts and not by prostitutes, but by completely sober state leaders who are in an "unchanged state of consciousness." The consequences of these sober actions are well known.