Globally, there is a huge debate on the drug war and questions around its legitimacy especially after crackdown in Philippines and other countries. Most liberals believes that the war on on drugs is an affront to the principles of democracy and thus, any attempt on the part of the state to fight it is a war on democracy. They argue that per the dictates of democracy, an individual is entitle to reasonably take any actions on their own based on the risk factors they access.
Both liberals and those who support the drug war are unanimous on the fact that, drugs have a huge impact not just on the individual, but the society at large. However, the liberals and pro-drug campaigners advocates that the State should not not impede access to drugs but must rather facilitate the process that hinders one to have access to the drugs that enriches cartels and drug lords who do not pay taxes on the revenue accrued on this drugs.
Pro-drug campaigners argues that the government should legalize the drugs with no restrictions while educating people on its abuse instead of the punitive sanctions drug users are subjected to. They believe that the State should build more rehabilitation centers and channel more resource into structures that would help monetize it instead of the huge of money wasted on its perceived war.
They often equate the war on drugs to war on human right that is fundamental to human existence and argue that because drugs are restricted, it makes demand exceeds supply thus making the price of drugs attractive to money launders. They also argue that the war on drugs has prevent the government to look at an untapped potentials and medicinal value some of these drugs.
Nonetheless, the anti-drug advocates also have an interesting argument that cannot be ignored. In as much as they believe that there are medicinal value in some drugs, they argue that the effect of the drugs on the individual and the society outweighs its benefits thus, the need to keep on with war on these drugs.
source
They argue that if the war waged on drugs is to be stopped and legalize, the society would suffer the consequences of it since almost all social vices are done by individuals that use drugs or are related to gangsters that use drugs. The culture of youth rampaging, hooliganism. gangsterism and deviants can all be related to individuals that uses drugs. Again the cost of caring for drug addicts at rehabilitation centers can be diverted to other sectors of the economy if the war on drugs continues unabated.
They also based their argument on the moral aspect on drugs usage where they individual may have they right to use drugs, but it is not morally right since the upcoming generations would learn those deviant behavior from the current ones. They argue that all persons have the obligation to be responsible and productive to the society and so, one is not in the rights state of mind to make decisions for the society when that person is on drugs thus, such a person becomes unproductive to the society.
They also make argument that the psychological effects of drugs users also makes it difficult for the substance to be accepted and legalize. The health cost of drug abuse they argue, outnumbers its medicinal and economic value.
They accept that drugs are have some benefits but should not be legalize because it has the potential to further deteriorate society for the worse.
source
To conclude, I believe that both pro-drugs and anti-drugs campaigners makes interesting arguments on how drugs should be handled by the State however, I believe the war on drugs has become obsolete since the intended outcome is always not achieved. Governments globally should make attempts to regulate it by establishing licensing regimes and research institutions that would help make good use of them .
In fact, African countries has the potential to be leading producers of medicinal drugs in the world by lifting restrictions on them and making sure the there's a robust system in place to to regulate for the benefit of the State and its people.
Thanks For Reading !!!
