In Favor of a More Liberal Drug Policy Essay

For many years, drugs have been the center of crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. Due to this widespread epidemic, President Richard Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 with a campaign that promoted the prohibition of illicit substances and implemented policies to discourage the overall production, distribution, and consumption. The War on Drugs and the U.S. drug policy has experienced the most significant and complex challenges between criminal law and the values of today’s society. With implemented drug polices becoming much harsher over the years in order to reduce the overall misuse and abuse of drugs and a expanded federal budget, it has sparked a nation wide debate whether or not they have created more harm than good. When looking at the negative consequences of these policies not only has billions of dollars gone to waste, but the United States has also seen public health issues, mass incarceration, and violent drug related crime within the black market in which feeds our global demands and economy. With this failed approach for drug prohibition, there continues to be an increase in the overall production of illicit substances, high rate of violence, and an unfavorable impact to our nation.

Dangerous illegal drugs have plagued American citizens and their youth for as long as the country has been in existence. These harmful drugs are not only responsible for countless amounts of deaths, but the corruption of the American society in general. All too many times have these drugs been blamed for insanity, racism, rebellion, and straight up violence. Today the government is spending approximately $19.179 billion in one year to combat these evils (Gifford). Unfortunately, even with all of this effort going in to stop illegal drug use, the “War on Drugs” is yet to produce almost any positive results. Because of this, politicians are urging the government to spend even more money to combat the seemingly

Proponents on the legalization of drugs believe if drugs were to become legal; the black market worth billions of dollars would become extinct, drug gangsters would disappear, addicts would stop committing crimes to support their habit and the prison system would not be overwhelmed with a problem they cannot defeat. The decriminalization of drugs will only make illegal drugs cheaper, easier to get and more acceptable to use. “The U.S. has 20 million alcoholics and alcohol misusers, but only around 6 million illegal drug addicts. If illegal drugs were easier to obtain, this figure would rise”(Should Drugs be decriminalized? No.November 09, 2007 Califano Joseph A, Jr).”

Drug policy is a crucial topic in the country today. Substance abuse, as well as drug-related crime rates, are a huge problem. This is a fact. The way to fix the problem of substance abuse, however, is widely disagreed upon. Some think that stricter laws regarding drug possession and use would solve the problem, while others believe that loosening the restrictions would be a better option. The issue of legalizing drugs, especially marijuana, is one that is debated all the time. In fact, in 1995, a survey was conducted on the most important policy issues and eighty five percent of the country placed drugs at the top of the list (Falco 1996). Many states are actually beginning to decriminalize, and even

Within the last 50 years, drug legalization has been a very hotly debated topic in the United States society. It almost seems that every "street drug" was once legal, but banned soon after its introduction in society. Illegal substances that one sees today were once synthesized and created by chemist such as LSD, ecstasy, methamphetamine, cocaine, and etc., and at some point used for medical reasons, however during many circumstances were deemed illegal by the government due to detrimental effects after prolonged usage. William Bennett's "Drugs: Should Their Sale and Use Be Legalized" targets the general American public into understanding the societal importance of upholding the nations

Critics argue that legalization of certain drugs will not end the drug war and that instead, it will cause more violence and issues for the county’s well being. In the mid-1980’s the cocaine epidemic hit and a large amount of crime, deaths from overdoses and violence came with it. The result of this was laws being placed with minimum punishment for drug trafficking to attempt to control the issue. Throughout the early 1990s crime started to slowly decrease and in 2013 the amount of crime was reduced in half. One viewpoint is that once the title of being non-violent labeled drug traffickers crime started to rise anew. Some crimes included murders of innocent bystanders and more drug flow into the U.S (Cook1). William J. Bennett and John P. Walters, Boston Globe writers, complicate matters further when they write “For 25 years before President Obama, U.S policy confronted drug

The argument over drug reform and the current prohibition has been going on for years. It seems to be an argument between a wise parent and a young teenager, but as generations change more and more of the parents seem to switch sides. While prohibitionists say the mainstream drugs like cocaine, heroin, LSD, and marijuana are harmful and immoral, legalizers argue the opposite (Rachels 223). While they are both valid and interesting arguments the drugs named above still remain illegal. Many organizations and respected citizens have come to America’s attention in their support for drug reform or complete legalization of certain drugs. These people range from normal citizens who support the recreational use of marijuana to judges and ex- law

The existing drug laws are very inefficient. This paper will focus on the people and the specific elements that are affected by the inefficiency of the drug laws. When looking at the drug laws at a glance a person might be lead to think that they would be very effective and they seem reasonable. While drug laws in themselves are necessarily wrong, some of the discrepancies in the laws make them unfair and take from the category of handing down justice and puts them into the category of cruel and unusual. First there will be an analysis of prohibition throughout American history, then an analysis of what the actual crimes and punishments are for a few of the drugs in the United States. Next there will be a look into who is affected by

At first Chapman does not limit his perspective to one side of criticizing the use of illegal drugs in society. Instead, he deals with this subject in a broad way. He argues over the fact that the use of these prohibited drugs costs the government a lot of money, police time and prison space and how in spite of taking several administrative steps, the government has suffered from a colossal failure in stopping the drug abuse. He provides the data in support of his argument which is direct and precise. Through the example of Bennett, he tries to convey the message that people are not willing to have the spread of drug abuse in citizenry. A survey was conducted asking people to respond to the following question: if illegal

     One of Bennett's strongest arguments challenges those who claim that legalization is a simple way to eliminate the drug problem. He rightly criticizes them for failing to describe the kind of world they are proposing, for failing to answer questions like these:      Would crack be legal? How about PCP? Or smokable

Today’s world is changing at a rapid pace. Things never thought to be possible are becoming very real. One of the popular subjects of wanting change is the legalization of drugs. There has already been a small amount of change in the drug legalization process with marijuana now being legal in a few of the states. Vanessa Baird in her work “Legalize Drugs- all of them!” argues for the legalization and decriminalization of drugs. John P. Walters counters Baird’s argument for legalization in his piece “Don’t Legalize Drugs.” Both authors take an extended look into the harsh reality of the drug war and the small progress it has made since it began.

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;

The most important factor for the spread of crack and heroin is that when opiates and cocaine are illegal, low potency versions of these drugs become extensively expensive. Thus, consumers are induced to switch to more intensive and more harmful drug forms and delivery systems. Absent the incentives created by current policy, consumers will revert to the modes of consumption that are less damaging.

As we delve into Mr. Szasz’s first argument, we begin to see major problems with the government’s "War on Drugs". According to Szasz, the prohibition of drugs is a blatant violation of human rights guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution. In order to prove his point, he equates drugs to personal property. According to the Constitution, every American citizen shall have "the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, the first two elements resting squarely on the last." (Szasz, 1). Thus, Szasz contends that "because both our bodies and drugs are types of property—producing, trading in, and using drugs are property rights, and drug prohibitions constitute a deprivation of basic constitutional rights." (Szasz, 2). In other words, just like the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment, so does the prohibition of drugs. Without that amendment, the prohibition of drugs is in direct violation of the

One thing that must be made obvious is that the government makes money regardless of the results that they produce. A good majority of the criminal justice system is paid with this budgeted drug money. There has been a historical increase in judges, lawyers, police officers and the creation of entire government organizations that directly make money as a result of the prohibition. It is not only law enforcement side that would like to see prohibition remain intact; it is also the drug dealers that would like the policies to remain as they are. (Harvey) Prohibition causes the handling of drugs to become a risky business and, therefore, drives the prices up astronomically allowing for a business that has a profit in the thousands of percent with no tax. Ricky Ross, the most infamous crack-cocaine dealer in Los Angeles, while being interviewed in jail told the interviewer, “I became addicted to the money and also the power too I believe” (Booth). These people will have the opportunity to make extraordinary amounts of money so long as current prohibition stays intact. There is clearly something wrong if both the government and drug dealers would both like to see prohibition perpetuated.