Should Drugs Transactions be Legalized in Hong Kong?

Should Drug Transactions be Legalized in Hong Kong?

Legalization of drugs has been a controversial subject for old ages. Some say drugs are harmful to people and should therefore be controlled by Torahs ; while some say people have their rights to take what to take and devour. Nadelmann, the laminitis and executive manager of the Drug Policy Alliance, suggested that drug legalisation can convey more benefits than injuries. Although he had provided legion statements against illegality and drug-prohibition Torahs, I do non portion his positions and I think drugs should non be legalized.

In “the Case for Legalization” , an article written by Nadelmann, he started his statement by speaking about the benefits of drug prohibition jurisprudence. He reckoned the drug jurisprudence can move as legal and moral hindrance that stop people from holding their first attempt, cut downing handiness and raising the monetary value of the illegal drugs. These can in bend lessening the figure of drug users and the wellness cost for drug-related conditions. By accomplishing these ends, non-drug users would non be affected by the drug users. However, he reckoned that many citizens did non believe the drug jurisprudence is a solution based on the beliefs that 1 ) they have the right to take what substance to take and 2 ) that the cost of implementing drug jurisprudence to forestall people from taking drugs is highly high. Like other propositions, there must be positions from both sides. But merely because many people believe so, it does non necessary is so. Although many citizens think that drug jurisprudence is non a solution, it does non intend the drug jurisprudence is non effectual and therefore the jurisprudence should be repealed. It is true that citizens have the right to devour what they want but that merely use when their actions do non go against the rights of the others, which, in this instance, is non applicable. For case, if a pregnant adult female is an illicit drug user, even though she would non ache anyone around while she does it, it is proven that the drug she takes would do abnormalcies or even decease to the foetus. ( WebMD, 2012 ) . Besides, many psychotropic drugs are known to impact one’s head. If a doctor’s determination is affected by the drug, the care-receiver may non be having the critical intervention to prolong their life. These two scenarios showed that if we allow citizens to carry through their rights to devour any substance they want without any restraint, it is possible that they may go against the other people’s “right to life” , which is the basic right for a human being to populate, and should non be unjustly killed by another human being. Hence, drug jurisprudence can, on one manus, deter people from seeking. On the other manus, protect non-drug users’ rights from the action of drug users.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Due to the demands of long-run intervention for drug users, the wellness cost and enforcement can be rather high. Some people might worry that this expensive cost would consume our government’s gross. However, is this ground strong plenty to warrant the act of revoking the drug jurisprudence? I guess non. First, the authorities outgo should be spent on people in demand. And we should non halt supplying aid to those drug users merely because it takes much money. Besides, based on statistics from the Treasury, the Hong Kong authorities has assets of 784 billion dollars where there are merely 18 billion of liabilities. It may be true that the wellness cost and enforcement cost are high, but since we managed to hold such big assets with the drug jurisprudence exhibiting for old ages, I do non believe the wellness and enforcement costs are so intolerable that we have to revoke the jurisprudence.

The author so discusses the negative effects to the society if the authorities criminalizes drugs. First, criminalizing drugs makes people more hard to get the drugs. Hence, the monetary value would be raised significantly. In order for the nuts in poorness to obtain drugs, they may rob and interrupt into someone’s house to steal money for drugs. Besides, criminalizing drugs would make an belowground market and that tonss of net incomes would travel to the criminals’ hands. Due to the considerable sum of net incomes that they can do from drug trading, different packs would contend each other for the laterality of the market, which would increase drug-related offense and people may acquire hurt. There is no uncertainty that criminalizing drugs would increase figure of drug-related offense, but drug-related offenses are besides classified into different classs: use-related offense, economic-related offense and system-related offense. For system-related offense, it is offense that resulted from the construction of the drug system, including production, industry, transit and the sale of drugs. Hence, being of organized felons does non necessary lead to hurts or deceases. Yet, it is true that these are the cost of criminalizing drugs. On the other manus, would legalising drugs create a better result than non to? If drugs are legalized, harmonizing to Nadelmann, drug monetary value would be lowered. And people do non hold to steal for money to purchase drugs as drugs will be low-cost for everyone. Besides, since drugs are legalized, belowground market and mobsters can no longer do net incomes from drug trading, which so there will be no drug-related offense. These may sound like a solution to the drug job. Yet, since drugs are legalized and the monetary value will be so inexpensive that everyone can afford, there is no legal and moral restraints for people non to utilize drugs. Because of that, the figure of drug nuts would be increased tremendously in Hong Kong. Possibly, people may state a lessening in monetary value non necessary addition figure of drug nuts. But I extremely doubt this proposition. Imagine if the monetary value of traveling to a illusion eating house has been decreased so greatly that everyone can afford, will the figure of clients non be increased? And if the monetary value of a freshly released smartphone has been decreased so greatly that everyone can afford it, will the figure of users non be increased? Let’s non bury the fact that most drugs are habit-forming. Once a individual started utilizing drugs, there is high opportunity that the individual will go on making drugs. It may be true that non everyone will fall into enticement of seeking the drugs, but it would most surely that figure of drug users will be greatly increased. Therefore, I do non believe the possible benefits of legalising drug can outweigh the drawbacks brought by it.

From the economic facet, Nadelmann suggested that if the authorities does non legalise drugs, a really big sum of revenue enhancement gross brought by drug gross revenues would non be profited. As seen from many drug companies nowadays, selling drugs can surely do a net income. And if authorities legalizes drugs, revenue enhancement from those drug companies can be increased by creases. However, as mentioned earlier, the entire assets and gross of Hong Kong authorities are sufficient plenty to back up its outgo. Furthermore, if the authorities legalizes drugs so as to increase its gross, its action can non be justified as the function of authorities is to safeguard the Hong Kong citizens from injury, like illicit drugs. If drugs are to be legalized, the drug companies will be the 1s who supply the drugs and physicians will hold to be ordering the drugs to clients due to their professional cognition in medical field. Yet, harmonizing to the medical curse of physicians, “I shall ne’er deliberately do or administrate anything to the overall injury of my patients” , it is made absolutely cleared that, as a physician, no injury can be done to patients. ( Sritharan, 2001 ) . Therefore, holding physicians ordering drugs that serve no medical intent, what is worse, but cause irreversible harm to patients will surely go against the ethical codifications of being a responsible physician. Peoples may see this action be justified by the jurisprudence ( legalisation of drug ) , still, if physicians can administrate harmful substance to patients’ organic structures, how can citizens set their cherished lives on doctors’ custodies? Besides, it is mentioned by the author that drug legalisation can take to cheaper and high-quality drug. But this is non possible since our authorities will necessitate to import drugs from other states. That means our authorities will hold to subsidise big sum of money in order to take down the cost of drugs. And since the gross of authorities semen from Hong Kong citizens, to equilibrate the chequebook of authorities, drug-taxes will hold to be imposed. In other words, drug users will besides hold to pay about the same sum of money for drugs. Alternatively of paying straight for drugs, they are paying revenue enhancements. Hence, the monetary value of drugs is merely virtually lowered. In this state of affairs, for those hapless drug users, they have no pick but to steal for drugs, the exact same ground advocate for legalisation usage to revoke drug jurisprudence.

From societal facet, the author argues that if authorities legalizes drugs, the quality can be controlled with no other pollutants, drosss and the hazards of decease by consuming those drosss would be minimized. Possibly, immediate decease can be avoided with quality control, but the effects of drug usage are non limited merely on physical facet but besides psychological. As I antecedently stated, most psychotropic drugs are habit-forming and able to do you experience tired and dizzy, which would impact our society in many ways. On a narrower facet, household values would be distorted if there is a drug-using household member. Family values are the moral guidelines that household members follow. ( Lovi, 2014 ) . If the parents of a household invariably use drugs, they would most probably set up a set of deformed moral guidelines for their kids that taking drugs is a normal behaviour and it is all right for them to make it in the hereafter ; while the fact is that it can merely convey a fleeting joy but lasting harm to our organic structure. On a broader facet, our society is built by the attempts made by the citizens through their plants and parts. Imagine when there are a big proportion of drug users, their behaviours may be altered by the use of drugs and can be easy irritated. Even though they may be able to move usually most of the clip, it is hard to cognize when they would be set off. Under these fortunes, our society would be much less productive and that the societal harmoniousnesss would besides be greatly affected. Besides, drug-enforcement agents rely to a great extent on clandestine operations, electronic surveillance, and information provided by sources. ( Nadelmann, 1992 ) . Nadelmann mentioned that excessively much enforcement of the drug Torahs would promote the creative activity of a society of sources. However, this state of affairs is similar to corruptness. Citizens are encouraged to describe any corruptnesss to ICAC. And we ne’er see any job with this action. On the other manus, we welcome it. So, I think there is nil makes it different in describing illicit drug usage. I understand that people propose for legalisation sees drug users as “different but do no injury to others” . But in fact, injury can be done both straight and indirectly to drug users themselves or people around.

Finally, say our authorities would legalise drug trading, there is one large quandary we need to cover with. Torahs are regulations that will be followed by citizens, it needs to be relentless and can be used in long-run. As an old expression goes, the hereafter of our society lies on our kids. As we all know, anti-drug instruction is being carried out among schools in Hong Kong. Furthermore, we even launched a Drug-testing strategy few old ages back. If drugs are legalized, what should we state our kids about drugs? Due to duty in advancing wellness of childs, we need to warn our kids about the lasting harm done by drug usage. However, since drugs are legalized, how do we warn them non to make something legal? Therefore, I think advancing a good belief in youngsters’ head should be our ultimate end in our instruction, and legalisation of drugs is the complete antonym to it.

To reason, the possible benefits suggested can non be guaranteed to come true, and there is a high opportunity that legalising drugs can convey more destructive effects. Although tonss still need to be done in contending illicit drug usage, we are on the right path. Particularly in Hong Kong, unlike other large states, contending illicit drug minutess can be more organized and effectual. Hence, legalisation of drugs may convey more harmful effects and may even put on the line neglecting all the work that have done in contending illegal drug minutess.

Word count: 2086


I'm Mack!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out