The Impact of Soft Drugs Legalization - Essay Example

Supply & Demand -The Impact of Soft Drugs Legalization Table of Content Supply & Demand -The Impact of Soft Drugs Legalization Introduction This paper will analyze the process of soft drugs legalization using an example of Romania country. The aim is to see the policy making process, and the impact of the legalization on the supply and demand. The issue is crucial since all people live in the society and legalization of soft drugs may have an impact on all people in the society. In addition, the use of soft drugs is one of the most watched variables of development of the people of any society. Therefore, the study covers the success or failure of the legalization policy; costs and benefits of legalization, the effects of cost, on demand; and, effect of prohibition of some goods on cost. In Romania soft drugs remain illegal as a measure to curbing soft drug trafficking, but currently there are endeavors to legalize soft drugs (Ioan 2010, Para. 4). Economists and drug policy Economists have opposed the prohibition of recreational drugs since the time America had prohibited alcohol consumption by a clause in the Constitution (McKenzie 1985, p. 210). Later by 1930, they revealed how expensive it was to enforce the laws against alcohol consumption, scholars opine that had they consulted economists they would have advised how difficulty and expensive it was to enforce the law (Ioan 2010, para. 7). For example, Irving Fisher one of the United States of America greatest economist claimed that he could not find an economist to speak against the ban of alcohol consumption. The advice could have helped them not to make laws only because of morality but to consider other economic factors too Prohibition”(Fisher 1930, p. 60). The same consideration should be taken into account with respect to other drugs. Initially, economists associated to the Chicago school of Economists who are liberals have advocated for legalization of soft drugs consumption others did not support legalization of the drug, but they changed stand after prohibition after observing that prohibition led to the following: corrupted morals of the law; undermined the respect of the law; and, failed to stop consumption of alcohol. (Friedman 1972, p. 82). The failure of the prohibition of alcohol to succeed implies that even the prohibition on soft drugs cannot succeed. Effects of non legalization of soft drugs Previous research on drug prohibition shows that, the prohibition led to shooting up of recreational drug prices, secondly, increased crime as consumers of drugs be regarded as criminals (Smith 1997, p. 35). Thirdly, overcrowding of prisons as more people got arrested and back log of cases in court as the arrested persons got prosecuted. Fourthly increased costs and expenses as prisons required expansion to accommodate the growing prison population and fifth, deteriorating of international relations with other nations that supply the outlawed product this leads to loss of international business and so deterioration of economy (Barrow 1997, p 170). Similarly, prohibition of soft drugs has led to increased market price of the drugs which can be lowered by legalizing drugs. Participants in the illegal trade do not use Courts for dispute resolution but use violence and force in the streets. Prohibition leads to overdoses and poisoning in that as the goods get transported and supplied by the suppliers in a concealed manner as possible the suppliers get to produce a very strong substance to be consumed in the same quantity and manner by the consumer (Smith 1997, p. 50). Similarly, the consumers cannot sue the suppliers for quantity issues to the government agencies without incriminating themselves, this leads to increased cases of overdose as the supply of drugs gets controlled by the black market operatives (Ioan 2010, para. 10). Effect of legalization of soft drugs on supply –demand. Supply costs in the black market rose up as illegal suppliers risked penalties for production, sale and distribution of banned soft drugs. Prohibition reduces demand by imposing legal sanctions for possession and consumers fearing to buy fake drugs since the bureau of standard cannot get used to ascertain the quality of a prohibited product (Smith 1997, p. 60). On the same note, prohibition leads to increase of demand with consumers wanting to buy the prohibited. Therefore, prohibition creates an ambiguous situation on prices, quantity and demand (Mankiw 2011). The supply becomes low as the suppliers get into a high risk of penalties for supplying a prohibited substance. The cost of living tend to rise as resources get channeled to implement the prohibitive law, and the economy gets ruined as the prohibitive laws create loopholes for corrupting law people and politicians. Soft drug legalization in Romania- moral, judicial and economic approach Legalization of soft drugs remains a taboo in Romania, with liberals believing that legalization of soft drug consumption shows the maturity of the Romanian society. The opponents argue that such legalization amounts to European influence, which cannot produce the expected results they blame drugs in Romania for addiction (Borei 2009, p. 92). Then soft drugs can be differentiated from hard drugs in that, hard drugs like cocaine lead to addiction while soft drugs get used for relaxation, as pain killers, to reduce stress and bring a pleasant experience (Borei 2009, p.94). The problem remains that, even though people know that soft drugs do not cause addiction, those opposed to the liberals will argue against legalization. People tend to believe that if drugs get legalized, the number of those who consume would increase rapidly mainly among the youth (Borei 2009, p. 106). This is not the ideal picture since many people are consumers of soft drugs, but thy do not say because of the illegality of consumption. On legalizing soft drugs and the prices going down, statics on the consumers shows different situation (Mankiw 2011). The truth remains that people consume soft drugs including the youth and the prohibition does not change the fact that people are consuming soft drugs. The prohibition arouses the curiosity of the youths of getting tempted to buy the soft drugs whose prices have got high forcing the consumers to commit a crime. Comparison of soft drugs with other legalized drugs The next dilemma, the Romanian State, should tackle and put those opposing legalization is in regard to the harmful effect on health (Friedman 1998, p.76). The question is why the society allows legalization of alcohol and not soft drugs. Alcohol is harmful to health and can kill people get addicted to it as well as to tobacco, yet they remain legal and the society accepts them for producing a relaxing experience and induces pleasure. The effects of alcohol also get to the worst with drunken people driving while, under the influence of alcohol causing fatal accidents, more so, they cause diseases such as cancer of the throat or lung. Many people under the influence of alcohol commit more wrongs than those under the influence of soft drugs (Friedman 1998, p. 85). Scholars opine that, people live in the society and enjoy the facilities thereof, and so people owe the society a duty not to cause harm to other people or their interest they have the right of doing what pleases them, and if they are not affecting other people the society should not intervene (Mill 1859. P.11). Therefore, activities should not be prohibited because they make an individual act immorally, then if soft drugs get banned for this reason alcohol should also be prohibited. Effects of legalization of soft drugs Irrespective of what happens with the consumers, the Romanian society, stands to lose as well as to gain because: drugs are very expensive and so they be inspected by the government to protect the citizens. The production of dangerous substance by suppliers gets controlled through inspection, thus the suppliers will maintain low prices because there will be more sellers in the market (Ioan 2010, para. 2). When the suppliers increase the prices decrease, but when suppliers decrease the prices increase, therefore, legalization facilitates an increase of suppliers hence lowering costs. Legalization reduces costs of transportation and storage, transit border check disposal and the costs for paying the penalty (Ioan 2010, para. 3). Therefore, the prices will go high. The demand may remain at the same level or even go down since the curiosity of the forbidden fruit is no longer there. Conclusion In conclusion, Romania should enact laws legalizing soft drugs, the thinking that Romania society has not grown up to know the need for drug legalization, so they think it is a European idea. The society we have is a modern society and not a communist society; every one should be aware and responsible for his actions. Romania state should recognize that mature people remain free and responsible for their actions provided that they do no interfere with other. With or without legalizations, the drug consumer would continue with consumption and the irresponsible people will continue with their irresponsibility. Prohibition of soft drugs does not help solve any problem in any way it creates more problems like limited supply, few suppliers making the prices increase, those who consume indulging in committing crimes to get money. Prohibition leads to corruption, populated prisons and extra costs to feed the populating prisoners. Romania should legalize soft drugs to ensure the drugs go through an inspection process to avoid dangers of suppliers producing dangerous substances. Romania should legalize the use of soft drugs to ensure that she does not severe diplomatic ties with foreign states who have allowed trading in soft drugs. Their legalization will help the rule of the law where use of force and violence as a means of dispute resolution by both users and dealers will stop, and they will seek court and follow court process as a mechanism of dispute resolution. Work cited Alexandru Ioan. The_Impact_of_Soft_Drugs_Legalization_on_Romania. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de, April 4, 2010. Web. 3 May 2012 Borei, T. & Ours, V, J. The Economics of Imperfect Labor Markets. Princeton University Press. 2009 Charles, K. Stephens Jr. M, Abortion Legalization and Adolescent Substance Use. Cambridge University, Article, http://www.nber.org/papers/w9193, 2 February. 2002. Web. 3 May. 2012 Clements, K. Daryal. The Economics of Marijuana Consumption, University of Western Australia – Economic Research Center, http://www.drugpolicy.org/Upload, 10 September. 1999. Web. 3 May 2012. Doyle, C., Smith. Crime and Drugs: An Economic Approach. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/publications/crimdrug.pd , 8 August. 1997. Web. 4 May 2012. Friedman, M. Libertatea de a alege – O declaraţie personal. Editor Publica, Bucharest 2009 Friedman, M. There`s no justice in the was on drugs, The New York Times. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/337.html, 20 April.1998. Web. 3 May 2012. Mankiw, G, N. Principles of Economics. Cengage Learning. 2011 Read More