This point makes the assumption that drug use only affects the individual concerned; in reality, drug usage can have a significant effect on people close to the user, as well as wider society. People who can be affected include family who have to care for a user and victims of drug-related crimes. In addition, in countries with welfare states, there is an additional significant societal cost as many drug users cannot hold down jobs.[1] Studies in the USA have shown that parents often put their need for drugs above the wellbeing of their children.[2]

This being the case, it is clear that the harms of drugs far outweigh governmental duty to protect individual freedoms.

Furthermore, doing drugs may be a free choice at first, but after a certain period the drug user is no longer to choose for himself/herself because addiction overruns their judgement.

Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.”[1]

Part of the reason that drugs are illegal is because of the health ramifications, which exist even if a drug is pure.

To give a brief summary of some health harms that come from unadulterated drugs:

 “Cocaine can cause such long-term problems as tremors, seizures, psychosis, and heart or respiratory failure.

Marijuana and hashish can cause rapid heart rate and memory impairment soon after use. Long-term effects include cognitive problems, infertility, weakened immune system, and possible lung damage.

Narcotics such as heroin can bring on respiratory and circulatory depression, dizziness, impotence, constipation, and withdrawal sickness. Overdoses can lead to seizures and death.” [1]

Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.”[1]

Whether legal or illegal, drugs will still be a source of income for warlords and terrorist groups. Instead of starving them off, the dealers become more competitive and lower their prices. The only way to stop these people using drugs as a source of income is to remove poppies from Afghan fields, to destroy coca plantations.

Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. However, one of the reasons why alcohol ranks so badly in such studies is because of its legality; if other drugs were legal, we would see their usage go up and therefore the negative social effects they produce rise as well.

If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed.[1]  Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction.