There are many arguments that come in favor of the legalization or decriminalization of drugs. While one can make the argument that drugs should be legalized or decriminalized in the sake of freedom or government leniency, or that there should be a greater emphasis on rehabilitation over punitive measures, objectively many illegal drugs have a number of negative consequences on society. A prominent focus by many drug legalizations is a perceived lack of consequences from drug legalization, which simply is not true, and many cases where decriminalization or legalization has been implemented, objectively crime rates have increased. Often there is an emphasis on marijuana specifically, which is seen as a softer drug in comparison to various "hard" drugs such as methamphetamines or cocaine, and is considered by some to be safer than alcohol, despite the individual being approximately 5.4 times more likely to commit violent crimes, and three times as likely to suffer from heart disease. Further, some cases of legalization suggest using the drugs to treat terminally ill diseases like cancer or AID's, despite a complete lack of the effectiveness of doing so, which has been demonstrated to often worsen these conditions in numerous studies (including by those which are still pro legalization). Some argue than prison's are full of non-violent drug offenders, when in reality 53.8% of offenders were in prison for violent crimes and 18.8% for property crimes, with 16.3% for drug offenses and only 3.7% for possession alone. Nonetheless, there are objective facts which can be analyzed before making the decision. Even if you are in favor of legalization or decriminalization, it's important to understand and comprehend the negative consequences that will come from this action, to prepare for them or understand and accept them, rather than suggest they simply are not real or do not exist, which can establish a dangerous precedence. While I personally believe in less punitive measurement for drug use and an emphasis on rehabilitation, which has also proven to be more effective at stopping drug use, I also believe that people should understand the consequences of drug use, and that we should not be more permissive with drug use, instead focusing on preventing it's use and rehabilitating those who use it.
A common argument made by many in favor of legalization is that violent crime will go down. The argument is made that policing crime is in actuality causing it to go up, which despite it's somewhat obviously dubious nature, is a widespread belief among those in favor of legalization or the decriminalization of various drugs. The argument often made is to end "the drug war", and that by not policing crime, it will miraculously or perhaps paradoxically go down. Objectively in the U.S., BJS crime statistics show that individuals who use drugs, even marijuana, are more likely to commit violent crimes, as well as crime in general. Approximately 2.7% of individuals who didn't use drugs at all ended up committing a violent crime, in comparison to 4.8% of alcohol users, 6.3% of heavy alcohol users, 14.6% of marijuana users, and 26.1% of those who used marijuana, cocaine and alcohol. [1] Drug use, even legal drug use, and particularly heavy drug use, made individual far more likely to commit violent crimes. Heavy alcohol users were 2.3 times more likely to commit violent crimes, marijuana users were 5.4 times more likely to commit a violent crime, and cocaine users were 9.6 times more likely to commit a violent crime. Drug use objectively correlates with higher crime and violent crime rates. Despite making up a mere 9.4% of the population [2], drug users (or individuals classified as drug dependent) accounted for approximately 46.7% of all violent criminals [3], as well as 48.9% of all homicides, indicating that drug users were far more likely to commit acts of violence than non-drug users. In addition, other violent crimes such as robbery (66.6) or sexual assault (32.3%) were more frequently committed by drug users, as well as non-violent offenses such as Burglary (67.7%), Larceny (66.6%), Motor Vehicle theft (65.4%), and weapons offenses (53.3%). Most harmful intoxicating substances tend to impair reason and cognitive abilities, as well as change the mood and behavior of the users, making them more prone to acts of aggression, and resultingly violence or violent crime. Even drugs perceived as being a depressant, such as alcohol or marijuana, contributed to higher crime rates, indicating that in fact heavy drug use, even by relatively "soft drugs" can contribute to violent crime. Long term damage to the brain over time also contributes to cognitive impairment, with damage to the brain normally present with heavy drug use, making many of the effects permanent even when the individual is not using. This is generally well known among the average population, or it is generally perceived as being common sense that drug use can result in behavioral changes which result in violence, and has been clinically as well as environmentally confirmed by psychologists and other socialist analysts, but still the myth persists among many that drug use is harmless, or won't increase violent crime rates.
We know objectively that marijuana and other various drugs effect the brain, increasing aggression or impairing cognition, and so we know that it will increase violent crime. It's not just a coincidence that criminal activity is more likely when people are on drugs. Some still will argue that the correlation between drug use and crime is not due to drugs themselves, but due to the socioeconomic status of the individuals involved, suggesting that due to the harsher lifestyle of those who are more likely to use drugs, they naturally are more likely to commit crimes. The truth is that drug use is not much different between the rich and the poor, with heavy alcohol and marijuana use actually more common in the rich than the poor or middle class. Therefore, the argument that poor living standards are what lead to higher crime rates, and those with poorer living standards are just coincidentally more likely to use drugs, is essentially false. Higher crime rates among drug users cannot be explained by socioeconomic status or living standards, or simply by engaging in a criminal lifestyle. "Higher parental income is associated with higher rates of binge drinking and marijuana use. No statistically significant results are found for crystal methamphetamine or other drug use." [1] - "Why does alcohol use increase with an individual’s level of income and education? The answer may be that wealthier individuals are able to afford more alcohol, and they are more likely to attend social activities where alcohol is served, such as parties, fundraisers, and sporting events. However, the exact explanation for this disparity remains unclear" [2] - "Alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking, and marijuana use were all more prevalent among young adults raised in households with greater resources."[3]
Furthermore, scientific studies directly examining the effect on the human brain have been done as well. A scientific determining if a history of violent behavior was present before smoking pot and considering factors such as socioeconomic status and aggressive or antisocial behavior, still found that marijuana was the single strongest predictor of future violent behavior. [4][5] "38% of the participants did try cannabis at least once in their life. Most of them experimented with cannabis in their teens, but then stopped using it. However, 20% of the boys who started using pot by age 18 continued to use it through middle age (32-48 years). One fifth of those who were pot smokers (22%) reported violent behavior that began after beginning to use cannabis, whereas only 0.3% reported violence before using weed. Continued use of cannabis over the life-time of the study was the strongest predictor of violent convictions, even when the other factors that contribute to violent behavior were considered in the statistical analysis. In conclusion, the results show that continued cannabis use is associated with a 7-fold greater odds for subsequent commission of violent crimes."
The criminal lifestyle argument doesn't work when the socioeconomic status of the majority of cannabis users is higher than average. In the Netherlands [Page 89], a country which decriminalized marijuana use, crime rates among drug users were similarly high, with approximately 24% of drug users committing a violent crime, in comparison to X percent of the ordinary population. Other crimes such as property crimes (56%) and vandalism (23%) were similarly higher than average, which indicates a further increase in all criminal action. The majority of drug users were also cannabis users, and responsible for the bulk of the violent crimes. In essence, even in countries where the drug has been legalized or decriminalized, drug users were frequently more violent, dismissing the idea that the drug being illegal or a criminal culture is what caused the high rates of violence. The same was found in X and X. In a study of 5000 [1]
In Portugal for example, decriminalization of all drugs saw a 60% spike in the violent crime rate, which was largely attributed to the legalization of the drugs. Drugs impair cognitive reason, especially heavy drug use, and more people using drugs or the same drug users using more drugs can increase the violent crime rates. The violent crime rate in Portugal eventually fell to 10% above what it was previously after nearly two decades of decriminalization, however in the same time frame U.S. violent crime rates have fallen by nearly 400%, suggesting that Portugal's crime rate likely would have fallen further without the presence of increased drug use. External factors like better police and lower rates of poverty can lower crime, as well as increased technological development, but drug use still caused the crime to be higher than it should be despite this. Crime rates should eventually fall in industrialized countries over time, with better technology and law enforcement capabilities (cameras to catch criminals, phones to call the police, cars to get to location faster, better forensics capabilities etc.) but heavy drug use will make it higher than it could be without it. In the U.S., state's which legalized marijuana saw both a spike in the violent crime rate and total accident rates, with most of the new cases linked to marijuana use (with marijuana found in the user's system at the time, or marijuana use being frequent). Incarcerations have risen slightly from 2001 to 2012 despite the fact that fewer than half as many people are now incarcerated for drug crimes; despite the idea that there would be less people in prison, in fact more people have ended up in prison, due to the higher crime rates.
The one supposed benefit from the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal was the drop in new HIV cases, however this likely was not from the decriminalization of drugs. First, new cases of HIV soared under the provision, with x new case of HIV in the first 10 years. HIV rates actually increased, especially among the drug using population, which due to the unfiltered access to illegal drugs and a lack of regulation on them was likely to be the case. The stop in spread of new HIV cases is likely due to two factors, the first being that the drug population is already heavily affected by HIV and therefore new cases are likely to be rare, and the second being that a new antiviral treatment developed in the U.S. has a nearly 99.97% chance of stopping the spread of HIV. This new drug is more or less responsible for the slowing of the spread of HIV not only in the U.S. but also Africa, South America and India, as well as countries like Portugal, and likely contributed to a reduction in new cases because of it. The decrease in new HIV cases is likely not due to drug legalization at all, but rather new means of treating HIV, which were not created as a result of the decriminalization program.
Drug use was also more likely to result in larger volumes of fatal accidents, particularly car accidents, but increased all accidents in general.
Expansion on Neurological effects
A common question is how marijuana or other drugs can effect violence or aggressive behaviors, and how they effect the brain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2612120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176893/
http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-56250-020.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26961342
https://www.mdedge.com/neurologyreviews/article/88896/alzheimers-cognition/marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171006164855.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405830/
https://www.mdedge.com/neurologyreviews/article/88896/alzheimers-cognition/marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Biochemical_mechanisms_in_the_brain
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171006164855.htm
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/DE.41.4.c?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed
https://www.hindustantimes.com/fitness/marijuana-leads-to-changes-in-brain-function-increases-violent-behaviour-research/story-FwphDFkSE6JoXB3RRajX1J.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26961342
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74394650.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/continuity-of-cannabis-use-and-violent-offending-over-the-life-course/F8E66EC005BDA73865872BD1F398A567
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1541204014559524
The Effectiveness of the Drug war
While it is obvious that decriminalization or legalization will not lower crime rates and that drug users contribute heavily to crime rates, and therefore higher drug use rates will contribute to higher crime rates, it is also prudent to analyze the effect of the drug war itself. Many consider the drug war to in some way be responsible for a spike in violence or the spike in violence, that it caused or causes this violence, as in comparison to the drug use itself. While partially disproved by the fact drug actually do cause more violent crime and decriminalization often leads to higher crime rates, we can analyze the before and after of the drug war's implementation to see if it has had a positive impact. One contribution to these myths is often the inability to easily dispel the narrative crafted by many in major media positions. Movies in hollywood or news articles often try and pin the blame on the drug war or drug enforcement laws themselves, and due the the lack of an as-powerful way to distribute the counter narrative to the general populace, the myth of the failing drug war persists. In reality, despite the drug war, violent crime in the U.S. and elsewhere is falling, and in places or case where drugs are legalized or decriminalized, violent crime is actually rising.
In the U.S., despite the fact the drug war, a term coined to deride president Ronald Reagan's and Richard Nixon's plans to decrease drug use, has been suggested to be responsible for a rise in violent crime, since these measures have been implemented violent crime has actually gone down. Drug use and violent crime rates have been closely connected for many decdes, with less drug use correlating with lower crime rates, and lower violent crime rates correlating with a renewed emphasis on enforcing drug laws. Since Ronald Reagan's drug enforcement act of 198x, violent crime has fallen by nearly 250%, or dropped from x to x, indicating that in fact violent crime has fallen in the U.S. since the measures were implemented. Contrary to common belief, violent crime is actually falling in the U.S., particularly gun crime, despite the perception by many, confirmed by the study as well, that it is in fact increasing. Violent crime rates are decreasing and have been since the implementation of the drug war, and there is a direct cuasitive link that reducing drug use will reduce violent crime. For example, since the drug war's implementation, most forms of drug use have fallen, such as cocaine or barbiturate use, where as legalized drugs, such as opiods or marijuana, have risen. Drugs that are not as heavily regulated have increased in use, such as marijuana, where as drugs that are more heavily regulated such as cocaine, have fallen. The greater emphasis on enforcing existing drug laws has resulted in lessened use, and decreased enforcement, such as with Obama choosing not to federally regulate marijuana use, and several states such as Colorado legalizing it, or California legalizing it for medical use, has lead to greater use, and greater violent crime in these states. In Colorado violent crime has increased by x, in comparison to x and x for x, while violent crime in general has fallen for the nation at large. Decriminalizing or legalizing drugs has concurrently resulted in higher violent crime rates as well as greater drug use rates, not only in other countries but in the U.S., where as states that have not legalized it are seeing a drop in violent crime. Teen use, which is still illegal, has doubled in states which legalized it for recreational or medical marijuana use, indicating that the higher availability is contributing to greater illicit use. The opiod crisis, largely from legal drugs, is one of the largest healthcare crises facing the nation, which is largely facilitated by the easy access to drugs.
In Mexico, Venezuela, Honduras and El Salvador, after drug legalization crime rates have sky rocketed, in comparison to X and X and X where it has dropped. The impact of legalization is obvious, with harsher drug enforcement laws resulting in less drug use, and softer drug enforcement laws or none at all resulting in greater use. While the use of certain drugs such as marijuana or opiods is often linked to a failure of the drug war, it is actually prove of it's effectiveness. When the drug war was stopped against marijuana, it's use and violent crime increased, while when it was continued against it, violent crime decreased. Violent crime actually has decreased because of the drug war, and in it's absence has decreased. This is definite evidence that the drug war is actually working, and that the permissive of drug use has a net negative effect on society. Drugs also only make up a small fraction of the revenue generated by international organized criminal organizations. Of the 870 billion dollars generated by criminal activity by organized crime, illicit drug sales only make up approximately 320 billion, or 36.9% of their revenue. Violent crime, property offenses, and other smuggling crimes often make up the bulk of their revenue, and violent criminal groups have shown a proclivity towards increasing violence when they can no longer make money from non-violent crimes like selling drugs, such as in Mexico. While keeping drugs illegal to appease the cartels may not be enough of a justification, it nonetheless is further proof that legalizing drugs will not reduce crime rates. As only a small portion of drugs, such as marijuana, is likely to be legalized (representing 40 billion dollars or approximately 5% of their revenue), this impact is likely going to be lower, and even with full legalization black markets will still exist, either to sale to children or to avoid taxes. As children under 21 or 18 cannot legally consume drugs but are often among the biggest consumers of these drugs, an illicit market for underage use is likely to always exist, such as with the heavy prevalence of alcohol use among minors, or marijuana and other drug use among high school students, with nearly half reporting to have tried marijuana, and a quarter cocaine. The simple reality is that there will always be a profitable market for drugs even if legalized for adults, and to avoid taxes. In New York, illegal cigarette sales is a nearly 5 billion dollar trade, designed to avoid the high, 200% tax rate on the drugs in the city. With high taxes will come those invariably trying to avoid this taxation, and thus a black market for drugs. Therefore even total legalization would only partially cut in to the profits of organized crime, likely not enough to defeat them. In essence, legalizing drugs would not stop the cartels, only force them to turn to violent crime to continue making their revenue, sometimes even against legal drug vendors. Ending the drug war obviously won't stop cartels or reduce the mental impairment from drugs themselves, and thus would not lower violent crime rates.
Another key argument made against the drug war is not it's lack of effectiveness, but it's negative impact on society by being overly harsh in it's punitive measures. Among these is the idea that the drug war largely fills prisons with non-violent drug offenders, who wouldn't be in prison if drugs were not made illegal. While there is some arguments to be made in the favor of an emphasis on rehabilitation, most of those incarcerated in the justice system are not in primarily for drug offenses. 53.8% of those in U.S. prisons and jail were incarcerated for violent offenses, while 18.8% are in prison for property or theft offenses, and 16.3% were in prison for drug offenses. [1] Of those in prison for drug offenses, only 3.7% were in prison for possession alone, usually due to the possession of incredibly large volumes, with the majority of drug offenses being for using a drug while committing another crime, be it violent offenses, drug trafficking, drug production, intoxication while driving or other similar crimes. A very small percent of criminals are in prison or jail for small time drug offenses, or simply using the drug, typically requiring extensive repeat use or external crimes associated with it's use. Part of the confusion comes from the statistics from the federal Bureau of prison in comparison to the total figures; state and local prisons and jails hold the majority of the 2.4 million U.S. prison population, while federal prisons only hold approximatively 200,000. Therefore federal figures are a small overall fraction of the total figures, and therefore do not represent the total prison population.
Nonetheless, there is still an argument to be made for an emphasis on rehabilitation over incarceration. While if an individual refuses to be rehabilitated incarceration may be the only recourse, rehabilitation is generally a more lenient approach, that is less punitive and harsh, allowing for softer treatment of drug uses. State mandated rehabilitation therefore would be a much nicer way of reducing drug use, rather than incarceration, and likely would cost less than imprisonment, which stands at approximately 30,000x per criminal, in comparison to about 5,000-10,000 for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has also proven to be more successful in reducing use rates than incarceration, and as with lower use rates would come lower crime rates. x amount etc. Therefore, a strong argument can be made for rehabilitation, to be more kind, lower crime rates more and cost us less money, however likely not for legalization or a total stop on enforcing drug laws outright.
The final argument that is made about drug legalization is by a comparison of alcohol prohibition.
Common health effects
Probably the most damaging effect of drug use, other than violent crime, is the effect on the health of the general population. While higher crime rates represent an injustice to the population, and infringes on other's rights to safety, the health impact is by far more severe in terms of total figures, with more deaths and injuries resulting from the negative health consequences than from violent crimes. Accidents, suicide and other self inflicted injuries are often more common than injuries or deaths from violent crimes, with a mere 15,000 homicides in 2016 in comparison to approximately 150,000 accidental deaths, with the figure ranging annually depending on the year. Car accidents etc. x percent suicidal people.
Health problems relating from drug use is even higher than this, for both illicit and illicit drug use. Even legal drugs, such as cigarettes, contributes heavily as a cause of death and drives up medical costs, especially for the average tax payer who often must pay for these medical bills. 480,000 people die a year from cigarettes, out of 2.6 million total deaths, or 18.5%, and smokers tend to die early and consume a disproportionate amount of government funded health resources. It costs the U.S. government approximately x billion dollars per year, or x percent out of 820 billion dollars annually for cigarettes alone, far greater than the slight increase in tax revenue from cigarette sales, or x billion per year. Alcohol and opiod use similarly take up large portions of the U.S. healthcare system, and cost the U.S. population far more in health and financial problems Drug dependence was linked as a primary cause to poverty, with x percent of those in poverty being heavy drug users, with drugs either putting large financial constraints on users or impairing their ability to work effectively. X percent of homeless people were drug users, along with x percent of the mentally ill, and x percent of suicidal people, suggesting that drugs have a fairly negative impact on an individuals overall well being and mental state, and concurrently their ability to hold down a job or lead a normal family life. In poor urban environments, such as Detroit or Chicago, violent crime was much higher among the white and black population standing at x, and drug use correlated directly with higher violent crime rates and single parent households, with x percent of the population having a single parent household, vs. x percent of criminals being from a single parent household.
Marijuana in particular is generally more dangerous than many people perceive it to be, even being more deadly than cigarettes in some way. While the overdose rate of marijuana and cigarettes are quite low, their chance to cause cancer or heart disease and other related health problems is quite high, particularly lung disease. Marijuana use resulted in a tripling of the likelihood of heart disease or a 3-fold higher risk in mortality, and a 4.8 times higher rate to suffer from a heart attack while using marijuana, rates higher than from cigarette use. [1][2][3] Lung disease also increased beyond the ordinary population, and marijuana smoke has been found to be as likely to cause cancer and lung disease as cigarette smoke, or x amount above the general population. There are approximately 30,000 lung disease deaths annually from marijuana, far more than the 2,000 alcohol overdose deaths per year. Cancer rates also increased, to x percent. Exact figures are hard to tally, but between x and x thousand deaths are believed to be from marijuana use. Among drug users at large, for all drugs, the death rate was also much higher, shaving as much as 10-25 years off the life of the users. [4] All of these problems were made wore by obesity, which has also been shown to magnify the impact of drug use dramatically, with obesity rates being much higher in the U.S. (38%) than much of the rest of the world (OECD average: 16%). As drug use often results in a more sedentary lifestyle, due to the impact on the lungs and heart and cognitive impairment (particularly when drunk or high), weight gain was often the result of drug use, in addition to hormonal fluctuations caused by some drugs, compounding the issue further. Furthermore heart disease and cancer were the leading causes of death in the United States, with approximately 600,000 deaths from heart disease and cancer annually, and an additional 400,000 deaths from heart disease related symptoms such as nephrotic kidney disease or lower respiratory disease, resulting in approximately 65% of the 2.6 million deaths annually in the United States. A doubling or tripling of the chance to get heart disease by the average citizen would have a devastating impact on public health, and represents a national security issue.
Marijuana also cannot cure cancer, contrary to some belief. Even pro-marijuana legalizing organizations and articles, such as x and x, report from the same medical study, which says "X-marijuna can't cure cancer". According to the study, x
Should we regulate drugs?
A question proposed after this data is, should we regulate these drugs? The negative health effects on society, combined with the higher accident and crime rate, inflicts a massive human loss, as well as financial one when policing the higher crime, rehabilitating drug users, and the health problems that result from drug use. While obviously a negative to society, there still remains the question, should we regulate drugs, and if so, to what extent and how? In my opinion, the simple answer is yes, we should regulate drugs, however the more complex answer is that the system should shift from a more punitive role to a more rehabilitative one. While it is true that the drug war has largely been effective, it would be more effective and burden the average citizen less if rehabilitation was more of an emphasis, even state-mandated rehabilitation, as opposed to mass incarceration. Many drug users go right back to using as soon as they are out, with a lower effectiveness of treating drug users than rehabilitation methods, and therefore court-ordered rehabilitation, perhaps encouraged by the threat of incarceration, should be the focus instead. Drug use is a net negative to society in many ways, from economic productivity, to financial costs to the average tax payer, to health and crime related issues, and therefore should not be encouraged. It is one thing to take a more compassionate role in trying to treat drug use addiction, and it is another entirely to completely ignore it. We should not be permissive, but rather use a gentler hand to prevent the problem of heavy drug use.
On the question of freedom, one has to ask how much freedom an individual can be given before it begins to infringe upon the freedom and safety of others. Most would agree that nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of citizens, as would they tanks or military aircraft, as the destructive damage they can inflict, even if used rarely, would outweigh the benefit to self defense and recreation. One could not reasonably hop in their tank in the middle of the night if a burglary occurred, and if they somehow did would destroy their own home or possibly kill them families or neighbors in the pursuit, causing too much collateral damage even if somehow used effectively. In the pursuit of self defense, a tank would likely be not only overboard, but useless, and too destructive even if used properly. Similarly these weapons if available on the open market could easily fall in to the wrong hands, with for example Iran or North korea likely to buy nuclear weapons if they could be readily purchased on the general market, making the proliferation risk to our enemies and other rogue entities too grave. Almost all people draw a limit somewhere as to where what items should be permitted to society, given the damage they can cause, and therefore the question that needs to be asked is how destructive is the object in relation to what it provides to society. Drugs are directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths annually, and 10's of thousands of murders, violent crimes and accidents which put even non-drug users at risk, which is far more injuries and deaths than firearms, cars, or other heavily regulated objects inflict. If the damage caused to society is too great, and the benefit from it too low, does it warrant regulation? In general most would agree yes purely on the basis of numbers, but it is likely many will make an exception for their preferred hobby, despite the damage it causes. However I would ask readers to seriously consider this damage and impact on society, and ask themselves if the minor benefit of the temporary gratification that comes from drug use are worth the high crime and health problems we would and even currently experience. Is the price in human life, physical capital, tax money, and the quality of life of the average citizen worth the minor, if not nearly non-existent benefit that comes from drug use? In my opinion it is not, however the choice is up to the citizen, hopefully who will be informed enough to make the right decision for themselves.
TL;DR Or in conclusion
Drugs obviously have an impact on behavior, which can often lead to violence, car accidents, health problems, or other harmful effects on society. Society should consider and weigh these risks before legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, and put in measures (such as more effective law enforcement and rehabilitation clinics), before legalizing them. The various myths about how the drug war or other potential causes are really responsible for crime are easily refuted, and unfortunately these myths persist in society despite this. Above all I would urge caution before nonchalantly legalizing all drugs merely believing they are harmless, as overwhelming evidence to the contrary exists that shows otherwise.
