Prohibition Of Marijuana, Heroin, And Other Drugs

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.

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 regarding the control of the traditional illicit substances (opiates, cocaine, cannabis) is currently moving through upbeat times in almost all Western countries. Prohibition on the basis of repressive law enforcement not only seems to fail on a large scale, but also to create vast additional costs, problems, and harm for drug consumers, who often find themselves in extreme social, economic, and health conditions” (Fischer 1995: 389).

The “War On Drugs” and Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 required aggressive enforcement. One method is the use of undercover police to enforce these laws. Three factors can jeopardize a dealer’s income: 1) Nonpayment, 2) other dealers encroaching on territories; turf wars and the biggest factor 3) being caught by the police. A method that crack cocaine dealers used to protect these three factors was the use and possession of guns. In the 1980s and 1990’s guns were as plentiful as illegal drugs. The U.S. Department of Justice in a manual of “Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence” cites that “those who are most likely to possess

The Executive Office clearly faced the daunting task of stemming the tide of a growing crime rate that included and alarming rate of homicides. Uniquely spearheaded by the intent of creating an environment that is both safe for the public and drug free. Previous Presidential policies have utterly failed. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs targeted the drug user and drug distributor (dealer) in the same manner and the group that was effected the most was the African American communities. The systemic limitations that the oppressed and disenfranchised minority populations operate in on a daily basis is biased; and the War on Drugs racialized the law enforcement and criminal justice system approach to litigation for nonviolent drug offenders. Specifically targeting drugs that are most likely to be used by people of color, marijuana and crack cocaine. Statistically significant results yield that from 1990 to 2002 eighty-two percent of all illegal controlled substance related incarcerations

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 government of United States spends nearly 15 billion annually on the “War on Drugs”. This translates to spending about five hundred dollars per second to combat the menace of drugs. According to group Law Enforcement against Prohibition, about 82% of the drug arrests are only for possession of banned substances. The War on Drugs has forced our law enforcement agencies to focus on nonviolent drug offenders instead of expending their energies and resources in capturing violent criminals. Our correctional facilities are overflowing with “small time drug offenders” which has created a number of social and economic problems for the country.

With availability, still rampant in neighborhoods, drugs are still ruining lives. "Further, prohibition has been ineffective and has failed to demonstrate any significant reduction in drug usage, drug supply, or drug harm" (Buchanan, 2015, p. 1). The only thing that the "War on Drugs" is documented as doing is increasing mass incarceration numbers but did little to combat the issue. Making a substance illegal, can create an appeal to that drug, making it more desirable. The illicit drug market is extremely violent, to begin with, but with enforcement comes more violence. For example, "Disrupting the once steady market by removing a key business leader makes this underground market more volatile, and turf wars become more likely. When a business is forced to operate underground, there are no legitimate means of resolving disputes between producers, suppliers or users" (Buchanan, 2015, p.

In order to find an alternative to the United States current drug policy, it is helpful to look at the current options. Governments typically take three broad approaches toward drugs. The first is legalization, in which possession and sale are lawful but still subject to regulation and taxation. The second is criminalization, which consists of the banning of possession and sale with criminal punishment (i.e incarceration). Lastly, there is the combination of the two—where sale and possession are prohibited, yet possession is punishable only by sanctions, such as fines or abuse treatment but not jail time.

Ever since the federal criminalization of marijuana in the United States in 1937, there has been a large underground drug market (Paul). Much like how the prohibition of alcohol simply forced imbibers underground, those who chose to partake in marijuana are forced to stay away from the prying eye of the law because of present marijuana laws. This means the drug world is concealed from the average citizen, hiding the dangers of drug deals gone wrong, police shootings, and other dangerous occurrences. In a way this allows the government to mask the fact that their well-funded ‘War on Drugs’ is ineffective, a ‘War’ with a budget of roughly twenty billion dollars; which is not profoundly effective in the curbing the use of drugs (Jillette). If

The psychologically addicted ignore these harms so that they can attain the “good”—their “high”—they perceive that drug laws produce. Other drug-law users ignore the costs of prohibition because of their “economic” dependence on drug laws; these people profit financially from drug laws and are unwilling to undergo the economic “withdrawal” that would be caused by their

Contrary to popular belief, the war doesn’t target big-time dealers or “kingpins.” In fact, those who are arrested for non-serious offenses, such as the use of marijuana, account for the vast majority of drug arrests (Alexander). For example, four out of five drug arrest in 2005 were for possession, while only one out of five drug arrests were for sale. Furthermore, the majority of drug offenders in state prisons have no history of violence or notable selling activity (Mauer, King). Another myth is that the War on Drugs is mainly concerned with dangerous drugs. Yet, in the 1990s, marijuana possession, which is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, accounted for almost 80 percent of the rise in drug arrests (King, Mauer). The truth is that

The launching of the 1960’s brought with it a public health issue concerning the use and abuse of illegal drugs. Responding to the crisis, the US department of Justice established the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous drugs, which was designed to control illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Building on the prohibition, in 1971 President Richard Nixon officially declared a “war on drugs”, which resulted in an increased federal role in the warfare by providing the federal government with power to institute new mandatory sentencing laws. New policies, including the passing of the Controlled Substances act, which, “superseded earlier legislation and classified cannabis as having a high potential for abuse, having zero medical use, and being unsafe for use without medical supervision,” (Barry, 2014) produced a dramatic rise in national incarceration rates, disproportionally representing those people of color. In fact, according to the FBI, in 2011 there were 750,000 marijuana arrests (the vast for majority) alone.

The complete banning of all drugs means that each user is a criminal; illegal purchasing, illegal means of financing the addiction, and association with fellow criminals of varying degrees. By studying the interactions between addicts and their dealers there is a clear cycle of dependency. Addicts are spending well above their means to fund their problem and making their money in illegal activities. Decreasing criminal activity by making drug substances legal, affordable, and accessible sounds bleak breaking the cycle is the plausible solution no matter political or personal

The consensus with regards to drug laws favors more stringent and draconian laws, with the attempt to stifle use and punish crime. There are many claims used against drug legalization, such as, moral degradation, crime, the destruction of inner cities; along with families, diseases, such as AIDS, and the corrupting of law enforcement. When one examines the effects of prohibition, one has to inquire: has the cost been worth it? Certainly, an argument for the abolition of prohibition doesn’t include the favoring of drug use, but merely recognizes the vain and utopian attempt to control individual choices. Along these lines, the unintended consequences of these attempts may preclude any benefits. Further, one has to wonder: are these laws—at