Health

One common reason given for the prohibition of drug use is a concern for the health of those using drugs. Possible detrimental effects range from altered awareness and reduced motor control to allergic reactions, poisoning and death by overdose. There are also wider effects known to impact health such as impaired educational performance, lower standard-of-living and increased incidence of depression. Many illegal drugs have been proven more dangerous than other unhealthy substances, though there is a debate on the comparative health dangers of licit drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco) and illegal drugs.

Certainly, there are myriad proven links between health problems and drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents) physical addiction and substance cravings; overdoses and poisonings; diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis. Among other reasons, many illegal drugs were once legal until their health problems and addictive properties were realized.

Economics and psychosocial arguments

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), drug-induced intoxication 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; prevention campaigns; harm reduction programmes; addiction treatment; public nuisance and third party damage; absence from work and lost productivity; crime committed by drug users while “under the influence”.

In the case of licit psychoactive substances (e.g. alcohol and tobacco), such costs are easily ascertainable and are rarely redeemed by tax revenue or the economic/employment contribution made by their manufacturers. 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) 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.

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. 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. 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.

Drug prohibition as a solution to perceived problems of society

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. Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts and drug pushers (attracted by profits) if drugs are legalized. They believe addicts are more likely to commit more crimes because their minds are altered (some drugs may cause harmful behavior), much as drunk criminals do sometimes.

Commercial exploitation of addictive drugs

Some people, especially those who might otherwise support drug legalization, are against it because of the impact upon society of the commercial exploitation of the addictive potential of drugs. The basic concept is that tobacco and alcohol are extremely popular even though they are relatively more dangerous than many illegal drugs and are subjectively less pleasurable. This, critics say, is attributable to the profit motive and large marketing campaigns of tobacco and alcohol companies. If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasurable, then chances are that even more people would become addicted, through marketing and additives. This genre of critics is pessimistic that a system could never be created whereby drugs could be legalized but not be commercially exploited. They often call for reinstated prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, or rather regulatory approaches to curb substance use such as: taxation, advertising bans, retail outlet and venue licensing, control over venue design, drinking curfews, etc. One factor critics point to is the tremendous lobbying power of alcohol and tobacco companies, as well as the large areas of commerce that are already related to illegal drugs, such as t-shirts about drugs, or songs about drugs. These critics also dismiss the idea that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper, pointing to the fact that most brands of alcohol are more expensive than most illegal drugs for an equivalent level of inebriation (this might be true in the USA, UK, Scandinavian, Muslim and some other countries, but is not true in most other countries; also, prescription drugs, as opioids, are much cheaper, when legally bought, than similar illegal drugs). Many of these critics feel that those involved in the production of certain currently legal drugs such as tobacco and prescription opioids are already profiting off of the addiction of their users. This criticism is directed not only toward the commercial exploitation of physiological addiction, but also of psychological addiction, which in addition to drug use can occur in relation to many types of behavior, for example gambling, overeating and economic consumption.

Sell-out and loss of “counterculture”

Allied with the commercial exploitation argument is an argument that legalising any illicit substances will remove their cachet as countercultural substance or symbolic role as a visible shibboleth for revolutionary, rebellious and DIY culture movements, and also dilute any cultural identification with ethnic, religious and ideological groups. While many see this as a pro-legalization argument (the normalization of recreational drug-taking being a goal), others envisage a sell-out and corporatisation of the underground culture that revolves around drugs. A common idea is reflected in a statement by legalisation supporter Richard Branson: “I believe it”s a product that should not be too commercialised and is better suited to being marketed by small café-style specialists.’ (quoted in a London Evening Standard article), although many doubt the strength of countercultural idealism when faced with commercial temptation for corporations such as Virgin to begin selling cannabis.

Illegal drugs as a pragmatic counterweight to global trade imbalances

Illicit drugs constitute a strong revenue stream for developing countries, with relatively few exposures to Western-dominated free market competition. This is reflected in the basic economic rationale which drives farmers in developing products (hashish producers in Pakistan/Morocco, cocaine producers in Peru/Colombia/Bolivia) to favour the growing of illegal crops instead of a legal alternative. Prohibition facilitates developing country control of the market by (A) outlawing the cultivation of the raw agricultural product in Western countries (e.g., cannabis, opium), (B) adding an element of risk to supply, and consequently a premium on the product price, (C) freeing suppliers from regulatory control of the product (e.g., taxation, quality controls, tariffs and distribution quotas), (D) guaranteeing that dominant Western companies cannot step in to oligopolise the market (see oligopoly), and (E) providing a reason for employing migrant labour (traffickers/suppliers speak another language to law enforcement, and typically have strong cultural ties to the homeland). Experience from legal trade in comparable third world agricultural products (chocolate, coffee, pineapples, bananas) suggests that developing countries are unlikely to receive a fair share of the profits of the global demand for their domestically-grown products (see unequal exchange), and furthermore that they will be highly exposed to price fluctuations. By removing prohibition, legalising and regulating trade, the argument is that (illegal but local) crime cartels will simply be replaced by (legal but Western) international trade cartels, with little benefit to small producers, and even less empowerment of producing countries in global trade talks. The current prohibition is thus perceived as imperfect (it attracts crime and political corruption, encourages addiction in producer countries, and offers poor ratios between farmgate prices and street sales), yet also the “least worst” option in terms of providing immigrant employment and ensuring north-south revenue streams.

Moral and religious

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.
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: “Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord, no respect for the work of his hands”.

In Scientology, drugs are viewed as a cause of spiritual damage and bodily contamination, with addiction being an obstacle to self-fulfillment.

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.

1. Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs. Studies show that marijuana use often progresses to the use of harder drugs. In other words, people experiment with what is often thought of as a “harmless” drug. Then, after using it for a while, a bigger “high” is sought; thus, users then turn to the harder stuff like heroin, LSD, cocaine, etc. This is particularly a problem since most people will not directly start abusing the harder drugs that are generally understood to be harmful. Marijuana use may simply embolden them to experiment.
2. Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased. Marijuana use isn’t truly a “victimless crime” when you consider all the crimes that may be committed when the user is under the influence of the drug. Drunk driving is still a major problem in our society despite all the education and stiff penalties. “Driving high” would be even harder to detect. Unless the user has been smoking in the car, there isn’t as distinctive of a smell as there is with alcohol. Also, there’s always the possibility that the lapse in judgment caused by drug use will lead to harder crimes like rape or robbery.
3. Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong. Many religions and moral codes prohibit the use of intoxicating substances. Marijuana is generally considered to fit into this category.
4. Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids. Even unhealthy legal items such as cigarettes and alcohol are prohibited from being sold to kids. This is because kids generally don’t exhibit the same reasoning, responsibility, and judgment of an adult. And their bodies aren’t as equipped to handle the intake of these substances. The problem is even worse for marijuana use. Developing brains and bodies can be dealt serious blows by the use of marijuana. Any time you make something legal, you increase the accessibility to children. All too often kids and teenagers get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes. We shouldn’t let the same thing happen with marijuana.
5. Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets. People who produce, sell, traffic, or use illegal drugs have already established themselves as people who will break the law. Anyone who commits drug-related felonies isn’t likely to be constrained in committing other felonies, such as robbery, rape, murder, etc. If such people are in prison because of drug charges, they aren’t able to go out and commit other crimes. Also, it often occurs that there isn’t enough evidence to imprison felons for the serious crimes like murder; however, if they can be imprisoned for something, society is much better off. At a minimum, they will be off the streets, unable to wreak more havoc.
6. Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug. Although some studies have been disputed, marijuana abuse has been tied to brain damage, cancer, lung damage, depression, amotivational syndrome, and even death. The brain damage has been shown to cause memory loss and difficulty in problem solving. It is the governments duty to protect the public from such dangerous drugs. After all, that’s why the FDA was created.