Everyone accepts that it is good, desirable, necessary, healthy ... reduce drug use. That may be the only point at which all agencies, nations, and experts agree. And yet we must accept that humans have consumed, consume and consume drugs forever. It is inherent to our nature. Therefore, periodically reopening the debate over its legalization, which seems as endless as the habit of eating.
may also contribute to this lack of clarity of the debate, motivated by the frequent confusion between the different concepts involved in the term 'legalization'. For most people, legalization is presented as a discussion of 'yes' or 'no' all or nothing, black or white, when in fact it has many variations and nuances. On the other hand, almost all positions and decisions are based more on opinions and theories on sound scientific facts, since there are few rigorous studies, reliable and comprehensive report on the social, health and legal legalize drugs.
saw the picture, I intend to try to clarify the conceptual debate, so that readers can at least know about what they have to say no, obviously you have to say: this is a thing of everyone.
Well, for this, I think that should be clarified at least the following:
1. Liberalizing: You authorize the sale and consumption of any drug without any restrictions. This almost does not happen with any drug, except with caffeine and some natural sedatives such as valerian, etc. Virtually no country or social or health agency support it. Public opinion, reflected in numerous surveys, neither endorse. Opinions aside, what is known is that liberalization is a drug to increase their consumption, which, regardless of the socio-political-legal you may have, always generates an increase in risk and vulnerable populations, and more complications and social and health costs.
2. Legalize: Means authorize the use of certain drugs for legitimate and ethical, such as research, health, palliative or preventive. For example, derivatives of marijuana for cancer problems, the morphine for heroin dependence, etc. There are many countries and agencies that have adopted such measures, provided in the context of health and social programs regulated and controlled. The scientific community, particularly experts in abuse, defending relying on advances in explanatory models of addiction, such as 'dual diagnosis' or self-medication. Widespread legalization of all drugs 'illegal', even for lawful purposes and ethical, is not supported by any country or scientific or medical.
3. Or decriminalize decriminalize: Refers to the 'no penalty' -No-felony drug use. This refers only to personal use, individual and personal of an illegal drug, and excludes the production, possession, distribution, marketing and distributing them. It is a measure taken by some countries for some drugs, such as Spain, Portugal or Italy. Still, virtually worldwide, possession and consumption of illegal drugs is considered an administrative offense may be punished and fined, as a traffic violation, "although it often tends not to apply such measures. There is no consensus between countries, agencies, experts and public opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of this measure to reduce consumption and the risks associated with it.
4. Regularization: the first involves legalizing and then authorize and control the use of certain substances. Think of the snuff: the legal use and liberalized, there has been regulated and restricted use in most developed countries. Or in marijuana and its derivatives, whose trading has been legalized and regularized in the Netherlands. It is a measure taken to control the use of drugs that were already legal, alcohol, snuff-socio-medical purposes. It has widespread support from social-health experts, but there are many discrepancies between countries and states, nor public opinion is unanimous regard.
And even could consider other issues that complicate the debate more so as to tax the consumption of drugs, the official list of substances considered drugs, the distinction between legal and health for each of the measures , etc.
Ultimately, it is obvious that raising the debate in terms of 'legal' or 'illegal' is not rigorous, not realistic or useful. Now, everyone agrees that this debate is necessary to do something to change and improve the situation because the police measures, political, legal, social or health taken so far have failed to reduce consumption or control its negative effects ... that you are always welcome, and I mean it from daily clinical experience, it's bad, very bad, getting worse, especially for the weak and vulnerable groups such as young people.
Published: The Mundo.es
0 comments:
Post a Comment