One the many controversies in our country today, regards the prohibition of illegal narcotics. Deemed unhealthy, hazardous, and even fatal by the authorities that be; the U.S. government has declared to wage a “war on drugs.” It has been roughly fifteen years since this initiative has begun, and each year the government shuffles more money into the unjust cause of drug prohibition. Even after all of this, the problem of drugs that the government sees still exists. The prohibition of drugs is a constitutional anomaly. There are many aspects and sides to look at the issue from, but the glaring inefficiency current laws exude is that any human should have the right to ingest anything he or she desires. The antagonist on the other end …show more content…
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.
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.
Some of the arguments for legalizing the sale and possession of drugs have been made on purely economic grounds. Staggeringly large sums of money are being generated through the illegal drug trade. All of this money escapes direct taxation. If an excise tax, like those placed on alcohol and cigarettes, billions of dollars would become available for public projects. The U.S. department of Health and Human Services’ agency SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
The United States has spent over 30 years fighting the war on drugs. Americans have paid a heavy price financially. The drug enforcement budget is now $40 billion. A lot of time, effort, and money go into America’s attempt in eliminating trafficking, dealing, and the use of illegal drugs. Many believe that this is a war worth fighting, while others feel that America will never conquer the war on drugs. The latter suggest legalization as an alternative plan that will help save the country millions of dollars. In this paper, I will examine the history of the drug war as well as the arguments for and against fighting the war on drugs.
There always seems to be debate on whether the decriminalization of drugs would be of great public interest. It is a very important and controversial issue that has many people wondering if legalizing drugs would be a right move or not. In the article, “Decriminalization Would Increase The Use and The Economic and Social Costs of Drugs” by David Mineta, Mineta argues about why drugs should not be decriminalized and how keeping illicit drugs illegal outweigh the possible negative consequences of legalizing these substances. Mineta himself writes that, “Our position is simple and evidence-based: both decriminalization and legalization of illicit drugs would increase their use, along with their associated health and social costs” (Americas Quarterly). According to Mineta the decriminalization of drugs will only allow more people to become addicted causing more health and social costs because seen as they will be more widely used. (Americas Quarterly)
In the essay “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the subject on whether or not the recreational use of drugs should be banned by law. Huemer believes that the American government should not prohibit the use of drugs. He brings up the point on drugs and how they harm the users and the people in the user’s life; he proves that the prohibition on drugs in unjust. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Americans’ natural rights and questions why people can persucute those who do drugs.
Due to the harm and ethical challenges it raises, the current US anti-narcotics policy needs an urgent rethinking to overcome the current drug menace witnessed across the nation. As it stands, the policy generally focuses on blocking the supply chain through a variety of enforcement regulations and agencies. In contrast to this, an alternative method of diminishing the demand through decriminalization stands to provide a more viable means of tackling the challenge. At the same time, this proposed change could help alleviate the negative consequences of both drugs in society and the subsequent War against them, not just across the nation, but as well in the regions supplying the drugs.
Drug prohibition may be a factor that is actually encouraging the spread of harder drugs. As government officials and police officers become more skilled in capturing drug smugglers and dealers, the pushers find more efficient ways to transport and conceal drugs, creating a larger supply and often making hard drugs more accessible and affordable to the common user. Although the government has succeeded in raising marijuana prices from $20 and ounce in the 1960’s to $200 an ounce today, the price of cocaine has fallen from $50,000 a kilo in the 1970’s to $10,000 a kilo today. Also, the potency and composition of these drugs is often unpredictable. If the government legalized these more minor drugs, as Milton Friedman pointed out in his essay “There’s No Justice in the War on Drugs,” they’d have the ability to regulate them and make them less dangerous than they would have been if they’d been sold on the street.
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
A controversial subject many Americans are constantly at battle over is legalizing drugs. Some experts have the opinion that drugs should be legalized for medical treatment, and for help with severe illness. Other experts argue that this will have a bad effect due to overdosing and addiction, and also the adverse affect on teens. I do not think that drugs should be legalized but they should allow people with serious medical conditions to use these illegal drugs. Legalizing drugs would only create and even bigger drug abuse situation, and especially for juveniles. Legalizing drugs would also create the question of what to do with criminals who are already incarcerated for this offense. There are surveys, which give statistics on crime, and how crime rates are affected by the use of drugs. For example, there is one survey called the “National
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
If drugs would to be legalized, there will have to be new set of laws to be follow. The major problem with our society as in now, is the spending in drug wars. According to Gary E. Johnson in “The Case for Drug Legalization” states how “...We are spending $150 billion a year to combat drugs.” This also includes spending in such as courts, jails , and police. But we should also consider, if drugs were to be legalized, It’ll be easier for the government to control and they will be able to tax the usage of drugs. Especially, the legalization of drugs will help spend money on other things such as education, public schools, emergency services and will save a lot of finance instead of spending on tracking down drug lords. Nowadays drugs are being sold nationwide through black marketing and a lot of people could get hands on , which cause competition between others drug lords, cartels and violence is erupted. I believe if drugs were to be legalized , it would tremendously drop crime, murder, addiction to certain drugs, and the government would regulate and tax drugs.
For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior
If we were to legalize drugs the number of users would increase dramatically (Wilson 1). According to Incardi and Saum, one of the biggest reasons for not using drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal. By making drugs legal it would entice people to go out and try them, which would make it more likely that they would become addicted (81). Wilson states that crime rates have fallen in this country and if we want them to rise up again the way we can do that is by legalizing drugs. If we reduce drugs among criminals it would help the crime rates instead of just letting them have all the supplies they wanted (3). It doesn't matter if it is the "hard" drugs or the "soft" drugs. You can become addicted to any drug and the users don't stop at the soft drugs but keep moving up to the hard stuff. Marijuana only increases the likeliness that
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
“ We realize that drug addiction is a sickness, but it is also a crime” according to Pam Bondi. As we all know drug abuse is a big problem that is not often discussed. The reason we do not discuss it because we tend to hide things that cause a mad image or problem in our society. But the issue is much bigger. The legalization of drugs would improve many things such as how the government would have control over its cost and sales, the decrease of crime rates and the way we treat the people in our community who seek help.
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.