Mr Sowell Why Should Drugs Be Legal Summary

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

Drug decriminalization is opposed by the majority of Americans. Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement are against it, as are many political leaders. However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the use of drugs, are making headlines. They are influencing legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate in the United States. Although, pro-advocacy groups claim decriminalization of drugs will lower incarceration rates and boost the economy, drugs must stay illegal in America, if not, more people will use, causing negative effects on health, families and communities.

When my audience hears “War on Drugs” they may assume it is a worthy endeavor because drug abuse is such a pervasive problem that affects many families. I must dispel the assumption that the “War on Drugs” dealt with the drug abuse problem or reduced drug sales. I can do this by demonstrating that there is plenty of evidence showing that the “War on Drugs” did not do what it set out to do and is therefore not an effective approach to the problem of drug trade and abuse. Additionally the imprisoning of citizens, even if it is done unjustly, does not reduce crime at comparable rates. Research from Harvard found that during the “War on Drugs” in state prisons there was a 66% increase in prison population but crime was only reduced by 2-5% and it cost the taxpayers 53 billion dollars (Coates, 2015). The fact the violent crime went up all through Nixon’s administration while he rallied for “Law & Order” and policing became more severe furthers this argument (Alexander, 2012). Four out five drug arrests are low-level possession charges as well, demonstrating that police policies aren’t dismantling the drug system just punishing addicts (Alexander, 2012). What’s more, drug abuse in America have remained stagnate and even increased in some instances even when billions of dollars have been pumped into the program (National

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

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

Baird seems well informed and thoroughly concerned with the matter at hand. She brings on many compelling arguments from many different angles. “This is the so-called balloon effect, where action taken in one place simply pushes the illegal drug problem into another,” (Baird 14). Baird shows her concern for not just one side of issue but the whole issue at large. Baird even goes on to stress her concern over all the deaths and violence due to manufacturing of the drugs, an issue that is not huge in the United States. Walter sticks closer to the same issues throughout his piece. “The charge that "nothing works" in the fight against illegal drugs has led some people to grasp at an apparent solution: legalize drugs,” (Walter) sums up his attitude from beginning to end in his article with this simple

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 rise of illegal drug use that began in the 1960s was accompanied by the growing opinion that drug use should be legalized. This feeling remained strong though the middle of the 1970s when the existing research on drugs such as marijuana and cocaine did not clearly point to health hazards. Those who favored legalization thought that certain drugs could be used responsibly by most people who would otherwise be law-abiding or even model citizens. In other words, they believed most drug use to be a victimless crime.

According to Michelle Alexander, why and how has the “war on drugs” developed over the last 40 years? What are the main political and economic factors that led to the war on drugs, and what are the main political and economic factors that shaped it as it developed over the last four decades? Draw on material from the Foner textbook chapters 25 through 28 to supplement Alexander’s discussion of the political and economic context.

A multibillion dollar industry, with a consumer population of about 125 to 203 million people; the drug industry affects lives of all racial, ethnic, economic , social background, including participants in the drug industry, addicts, teenagers, parents, families, and officers of the law. Many people have encountered an experience with drugs and or drug education; the shared experience regarding the discussion of this topic or illegal experience brings importance to this current issue and validates the proposal for change. How much change, what change and how long will the change take place. Although this issue has many perspectives and opinions on how the war on drugs could be “won”, I will focus on two perspectives: drug criminalization and drug legalization. In a Human Rights lens, I will discuss the limitations and strengths of both methods. In the opinion of some and with hindsight the status quo regarding drugs requires reform in order to reverse the unintended consequences of drug prohibition. In the opinion of others criminalizing participants in the drug trade should be penalized under the law.

You might be tempted to label Thomas Szasz, author of Our Right to Drugs, The Case for a Free Market, a counter-culture hippie. However, this analysis couldn’t be further from the truth. Szasz, a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, is a major supporter of civil liberties. He sees the so-called "War on Drugs" as one of the worst atrocities that the American Government has perpetrated on its people. Szasz contends that the prohibition of certain drugs, including common prescription drugs, is nothing more than the government telling the people that "father knows best". It is this paternalistic attitude that Szasz finds so oppressive.

Drug use is part of human nature, but the unimaginable wealth involved leads to the corruption of the police, judges, and elected officials. There is no reason to have the government regulating what goes into an individual’s body. An extreme case of what we’re letting the government do is letting them take away our own self, an individual’s ownership over his own body. I think it’s in everyone’s interest to legalize all drugs, since this war is going nowhere, letting