"Legalization of Drugs in the United States and Mexico" is an engrossing example of a paper on the health system. People are sovereign over what is happening in their bodies, and they should be at liberty to make choices on what they think can affect them and not others. Because the pleasure that is associated with the use of the drugs and the level to which their usage weighs against the possible risks are very subjective, it is not the responsibility of the state to do the legislation in this area of great concern.
One has to put everything on a balance, and decide which option outweighs the other: Legalizing drugs that responsible people will continue to avoid, regardless of the legality; or allow the illegal status of drugs to continue to foster an environment and business that spreads violence, fear, insecurity, and the loss of life into American communities (Morris 36). Instead of wasting a lot of the government resources in trying to suppress the use of the drugs, the state should run a campaign that is information-oriented so as to enlighten people about the risks and even possible consequences of using many kinds of drugs.
This paper seeks to analyze whether the use of drugs should be legalized or not in the United States and Mexico based on the problems that are associated with the drugs that create cartels between the two countries. In the United States, purity of illegal Amphetamine in most cases is below 5%, and some of the tablets that are sold in the marketplaces are sold as ecstasy that does not contain MDMA at all.
Instead, a lot of drugs are adulterated with other substances like chalk and even talcum to form completely different drugs. When the use of drugs is made legal then the state can get it very easy to regulate their sale and availability in the market to make sure that they are very safe and clean for human consumption and that they ate not cut with other substances that may be harmful to human life. Consequences of Drug Liberalization Making the use of drugs illegal by the state increases the amount of crime that could have been easily eliminated if the drugs were legalized.
Controlling the prices of the drugs would imply that drug addicts would leave their habits of stealing so as to fund their habits of using drugs. On the other hand, state-provided drug services would keep out the drug dealers out of the business thereby starving the criminal gangs of their primary source of funds. Most Taliban get a lot of their revenues from the sale of poppies which gives a good ground for heroin. They participate in doing this through intimidation farmers in the local regions who would otherwise sell their produce at the market places (Hanson 922).
Also, they demand the protection of their money, or else they use another warlord from the local region to rob the farmers. A lot of people have died in Mexico from January 2007 from the hand of the gangster who is trying to protect their revenue. A good part of the United States from Brazil to Colombia has also had their governments shaken by the drug lords (Ackleson 171). The high and costly but unsuccessful fight on drugs could be easily brought to an end by starving the terrorists of their earnings from the production of the drugs.
Following this, peace and development could be brought in many countries that are very unstable and are producing drugs like Colombia and even Afghanistan. In many countries where consumption of most drugs is illegal for example tobacco and alcohol, they experience very devastating consequences in the societies. In the United State, consumption of alcohol has the worst of any drug and yet the current law in place gives recognition of the fact that people should be able to make a choice on whether to continue drinking or not.
The same analogy should remain true with the drugs also. In a few years, the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco in the United States was approximate $ 10 billion. If the state had legalized the use of the drugs, it could have taxed them and use the money that is collected from the tax to fund treatment. Currently, such treatment appears to be very expensive and difficult to justify as it consumes a lot of the taxpayers' money on the junkies. Counter Arguments If the state has to decide to make money out of taxation of the drugs, the supposed benefits of the lower-priced drugs will just but encourage the practice of the black market to continue.
In Mexico, there are a large number of the black market on the tobacco; it is suspected that the amount of tax that has not been collected amounts to about 20% of the cigarettes and about 57% of the hand-rolling tobacco that is consumed.
It the state has to make money from this kind of activity then it is morally wrong, the point of the treatment of the drug is to assist the drug addicts off the drugs. Alcohol and tobacco consumption perhaps should also be made illegal. However, the main reason alcohol ranks poorly in such studies is mainly due to its legality. If other drugs were also made legal, then we would see their consumption rise and, as a result, their negative social effects will also rise as well (Gay and Ray.
247). Drugs will still be the major source of income for the warlords and the terror groups whether they are made legal or illegal. Instead of making them starve, the drug dealers become more and more competitive and lower their selling prices. One of the possible ways that can be used to stop those individuals that are using drugs as their main source of income is to establish measures that will help to remove poppies from the fields and to completely destroy the coca plantations. Some of the reasons that drugs are made illegal are due to the health ramifications that occur even if the drugs are pure.
Just to mention some health harms that come from the drugs that are adulterated: abuse of cocaine can cause problems like tremor, psychosis and in some cases, it may cause heart or respiratory failure. Marijuana can cause memory impairment and even rapid heart rates immediately after use. In the long run, its usage may cause effects like infertility, weakened immune system and damages of the lungs (Wells 78).
Narcotics like heroines can cause depression in respiration and blood circulation, dizziness, impotence and a lot of users can eventually lead to death. The point that the use of the drugs only affects the concerned individuals is not true, drug usage can have extended effects on individuals who are very close to the users as well as the entire society (Swanson 782). People who could be adversely affected are the close family members who have to provide care for the users and victims of the crimes that are related to drug abuse.
For the countries with welfare states, there is increased the number of societal cost as a lot of drug users cannot effectively work. This being the case, it is very true that the harms that drug causes outweigh the role of the government to protect the freedom of the individuals. Doing the drug may be a free choice of individuals but after a certain time, the drug addicts will no longer choose for themselves since addiction covers all their judgments.
Ackleson, Jason. “Transnational Crime and Public Security: Challenges to Mexico and the United States.” Latin American Politics and Society 45.1 (2003): 170-4.
Gay, Samantha and Sabin Ray. “War on Drugs: How Will Domestic Legalization Affect International Conflict?” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 20.1 (2013): 245-52.
Hanson, Gordon H. “Illegal Migration from Mexico to the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 44.4 (2006): 869-924.
Morris, Stephen D. “Corruption, Drug Trafficking, and Violence in Mexico.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 18.2 (2012): 29-43.
Swanson, Joe. “DRUG TRAFFICKING IN THE AMERICAS: REFORMING UNITED STATES TRADE POLICY.” The George Washington International Law Review 38.4 (2006): 779-805.
Wells, Brenda. “Marijuana Legalization: Implications for Property/Casualty Insurance.” Journal of Insurance Issues 37.1 (2014): 77-92.