CANNABIS: falsa fé
"Prohibition has two effects: on one hand it raises supplier costs, disrupts market functioning and prevents open promotion of the product; on the other, it sacrifices the authorities’ ability to tax transactions and regulate operation of the market, product characteristics and promotional activity of suppliers. The cannabis prevalence rates show clearly that prohibition has failed to prevent widespread use of the drug and leaves open the possibility that it might be easier to control the harmful use of cannabis by regulation of a legal market than to control illicit consumption under prohibition. The contrast between the general welcome for tobacco regulation (including bans on smoking in public places) and the deep suspicion of prohibition policy on cannabis is striking and suggests that a middle course of legalised but limited consumption may find a public consensus."
Um facto incontestado: a cannabis é da família do álcool no que se refere ao grau de dependência física e psicológica. A diferença de política só se explica pela má fé, ou melhor, pela falsa fé. O resultado do drug control trend é escabroso: não diminuiu o consumo ( veja-se o último relatório do UNODC) e biliões de dólares são, todos os anos, atirados borda fora para deleite dos traficantes.
Bibliografia: Pudney, Stephen, "Drugs Policy – What Should We Do About Cannabis?" Centre for Economic Policy Research (London, United Kingdom: April 2009), p. 23.
