AI will not have a radical impact on the legal profession A real debate that recognizes the complexities and uncertainties that inevitably surround the notion of drug legalization is long overdue. Not only would this deter people from making the kind of flippant, if not frivolous, claims – both for and against – that have permeated previous legalization debates, but it could also inspire a broader and equally critical assessment of current U.S. drug control programs and priorities. This chapter highlights the gaps in legal governance and accountability related to new public procurement. It deals with various proposals for legal reform in administrative law, private law and constitutional law. It also argues that a hybrid reform strategy, rather than one that simply aims to extend or develop private or public law in a particular direction, is most likely to succeed in addressing these governance deficiencies and protecting both the individual interests of the parties involved in public procurement procedures and the public interest in general. Not surprisingly, the broader international implications of drug legalization have also gone largely unnoticed. Here, too, there are still long questions that need to be answered. Given the long-standing situation in the United States. How would a decision to legalize drugs as the main sponsor of international drug control measures affect other countries? What will happen to the overall regime of multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements? Will each nation have to comply with a new set of rules? If not, what would happen? Would more permissive countries suddenly be flooded with drugs and addicts, or would drug traffickers focus on countries where stricter restrictions have kept profits higher? This is not an abstract issue.

The Netherlands` liberal drug policy has attracted an influx of “drug tourists” from neighboring countries, as has the now-abandoned city of Zurich after the now-abandoned experiment that allowed an open drug market in the so-called “needle park.” And while it is conceivable that rich countries can mitigate the worst consequences of drug legalization through extensive public drug prevention and treatment programs, what about the poorest countries? Many debaters have careers in law (and also in politics), and that makes a lot of sense to me. As a debater and judge, I have realized that the skills you develop through practice and competition are very useful in the legal context. Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activities and related problems will disappear or even decline sharply. However, to answer this question, it is still necessary to know the specificities of the regulatory system, in particular the conditions of supply. When drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, the potential for illegal undercutting seems rather slim. In a more restrictive regime, such as state-controlled outlets or medical prescription systems, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to persist or expand to meet legally unmet demand. In short, the desire to control access to containment consumption must be weighed against emerging black market opportunities. Systems that risk a persistent black market require more questions – about how new black markets work over time, whether it is likely to be more benign than existing ones, and more generally whether the trade-off with other benefits is always worth it. Many arguments seem to make legalization a convincing alternative to today`s prohibitionist policies. In addition to undermining black market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could eliminate or at least significantly reduce the very problems that most concern the public: the crime, corruption and violence that accompany the functioning of illicit drug markets.

It would also likely reduce the damage caused by the lack of quality controls for illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle parts and other unsanitary practices. In addition, governments could abandon costly and largely futile efforts to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and imprison offenders by spending the money saved to educate people not to use drugs and to treat those who become addicted. For the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, “the law is public conscience”. The comprehensive and provocative U.S. legislative debates deal comprehensively and provocatively with issues that are at the forefront of American consciousness. Comprising a series of constitutional debates produced in collaboration with the National Constitution Center, the debates attract leading jurists and policy experts, including Alan Dershowitz, Eric Posner, Nancy Gertner, Akhil Reed Amar, and Zephyr Teachout. You are the judge: listen to the opposing parties and find out where your conscience lies. Even if you do not have the opportunity and time to participate in debates or judge tournaments, it is still possible to engage in similar activities. In law school, show trials, mock trials and oral arguments are excellent opportunities to discuss complex legal issues with your opponents.

Outside the law, you can watch videos of the argument in the courtroom during the last hot criminal trial or a Supreme Court hearing. I would also suggest observing the debates between students in schools and universities. I am incredibly inspired by these young people who obviously work very hard to research their problems, create synergies with their debate partner, present their arguments concisely and effectively, and adjust their strategies according to their opponents and atmosphere. At the highest levels of these debates, students are indistinguishable from some of the most persuasive speakers, advocates and politicians. The most obvious case is the regulation of adolescents` and young adults` access to drugs. Whatever the regime, it is hard to imagine that the drugs that are now banned would be more readily available than alcohol and tobacco today. Would there be a black market for drugs for youth, or would the regulatory system be as permeable as the current one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to both questions would reduce the appeal of legalization. As in the past, some observers will no doubt see the solution in much harsher penalties to deter both suppliers and users of illicit psychoactive substances.

Others will argue that the answer lies not in more enforcement and tougher penalties, but in fewer penalties. In particular, they will argue that the edifice of national laws and international conventions that collectively prohibit the production, sale and use of large numbers of drugs for non-medical or scientific purposes has proven to be physically harmful, socially divisive, prohibitive and ultimately counterproductive by creating the very incentives that perpetuate a violent black market for illicit drugs. They will also conclude that the only logical step for the United States is to “legalize” drugs – essentially by repealing and dismantling current drug laws and enforcement mechanisms, just as America abandoned its brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. In the legal world, boundaries are a fact of life, whether you`re writing a one-word limited letter, trying to close a high-stakes negotiation or a deal in a matter of weeks, preparing for seven-hour testimony, or taking other scenarios. Within organizational hierarchies, you must meet internal deadlines to allow for review by more experienced lawyers, or allow buffer time to engage experts or gather information. Therefore, it is crucial to feel comfortable within the confines of constraints to manage your stress levels and workflow. Debate increases a person`s ability to do quality work under pressure by teaching organization, time management, and prioritization. More importantly, such discussions are unnecessary until the nature of the purported regulatory regime is clarified. It would be surprising, for example, if the use of legalized drugs did not increase, if they were as available on the market as alcohol and tobacco products are today, with sophisticated packaging, marketing and advertising. But more restrictive systems could have very different results. In any case, the risk of increased drug use could be acceptable if legalization could dramatically, if not completely, eradicate crime linked to the black market in illicit drugs, while making some forms of drug use safer.