I would like to say that this paper shows the point of view of total drug ban supporters, provides a history of drug policies pursued by the United States, and puts forward arguments against the softer (less restrictive) policies, commonly referred to as “legalization of drugs”, while as a main argument against the last is considered negative global experience with such permitted by law psychoactive substances such as alcohol and tobacco. Also the paper was written with an aim to show how funds that are used to fight drug trafficking would be better used if we would channel the funds to preventive and rehabilitation programs which should alleviate the need for illegal drugs in the United States. In the end of the paper we conclude that only strong public policy, intended to reduce harm through the prevention of drug abuse can achieve successes.
Recent trends in the U.S. policy towards the consumption of psychoactive substances are discussed in the context of the history of drug policy in the country. Restrictive policy in this area serves as a deterrent consumption of such substances, and helps reduce social problems and costs associated with them. Legalization or decriminalization of drugs could mitigate some of the legal consequences of their use, but the growth of their use would lead to harmful consequences.
Recent discussions on how to achieve success in solving problems related to drug use in the U.S. are concentrated around the two opposing models of politics. Proponents of one of these concepts, generally known as the prohibition, support the expansion of measures to ban them, as well as implementation of curative and preventive programs.
Proponents of the opposite point of view, defined as the “legalization”, insisting on the abolition of restrictive policies on drugs and psychotropic substances, at the same time seeking methods to reduce the harmful consequences associated with their non-medical use. Knowledge of the history of drug policy in the United States would consider the subject of debate and the positions of its members in a more complete and objective context.