Should the united states end drug prohibition Essay Example For Students

Should the united states end drug prohibition Essay Should the United States End Drug Prohibition?The Federal Government, while trying to protect us from our human nature,developed harsh anti-drug policies with the hope of eradicating drugs. Atthe time, these policies seemed simple enough: we will impose penalties onthose who use substances illegally, we will intercept drugs coming fromother countries while ending all drug cultivation in the States, and we willeven try to prevent foreign governments from growing these substances. Theidea of the Drug Prohibition surely made sense: lower demand of drugs by lawenforcement, and reduce supply through domestic and international means. Unfortunately, the Drug Prohibition led to heavy costs, both financially andotherwise, while being ineffective, if not, at times, counterproductive. Today, we can see the unforeseen costs of the Drug Prohibition, and weshould consider these costs before expanding the War on Drugs.First, among the costs of the War on Drugs, the most obvious is monetarycost. The direct cost of purchasing drugs for private use is $100 billion ayear. The federal government spends at least $10 billion a year on drugenforcement programs and spends many billions more on drug-related crimesand punishment. The estimated cost to the United States for the War onDrugs is $200 billion a year or an outstanding $770 per person per year,and that figure does not include the money spent by state and localgovernment in this war (Evans and Berent, eds. xvii). The second cost of this war is something economist like to callopportunity costs. Here, we have two resources which are limited: prisoncells and law enforcement. When more drug crimes take up law enforcementstime and when more drug criminals take up cells, less ability to fight othercrime exists. This becomes significant when an estimated 35-40 millionAmericans use drugs per year. In 1994, law enforcement arrested some750,000 people on drug charges, and of those 750,000, 600,000 were chargedmerely with possession. Sixty percent of the prison population are drugoffenders (Wink). The police, therefore, most work to find these 35 millioncriminals, thereby exhausting their resources. Also, in major urbancenters, the number of drug offences brought to trial are outstanding. Forexample, in Washington in 1994, 52% of all indictments were drug related asopposed to 13% in 1981 (Evans and Berent, eds. 21). All aspects of ourlegal system are being exhausted on drugs when it could be used moreef fectively on other felonies or focused on preventing children from buyingdrugs. Another two legal aspects of Drug Prohibition are interesting since theyshow how the Prohibition is not only ineffective, but alsocounterproductive. The first of which is the fact that the illegality ofdrugs leads to huge profits for drug dealers and traffickers. Ironically,the Drug Prohibition benefits most the drug traffickers and dealers asprices are pushed well above cost (Evans and Berent, eds. 22). The secondaspect of the Drug Prohibition that undermines law enforcement is the needfor drug users to commit personal property crimes. One-third of the peoplearrested for burglary and robbery said that they stole only to support theirhabit, and about 75% of personal property crimes were committed by drugabusers. Studies also suggest that these people, when placed on outpatientdrug therapy or sold drugs at a lower price commit much less crime (Duke). Even the DEA admits that, Drug use was common among inmates serving timefor robbery, burglary, and drug offenses (Crime, Violence). Drug Prohibition has been very costly, detrimental to our relations withother countries, and harmful to users and society alike. All this whiletrying to battle an enemy who is not as dangerous as it is currentlybelieved by most of the American public. The unpleasantries of the historyof Drug Prohibition also show us how the public has been mislead throughProhibition. Many of these disagreeable acts were not circumstances of DrugProhibition, rather goals of it, whether it was understood or not. The United States image in Latin America has been precarious nearly fromits birth. The image of the American intent on dominating the New Worldplays in the minds of our neighbors. Recently, though, the situation isinteresting since the countries involved are growing less and lesscomplacent to deal with the losses of sovereignty that they are incurring. Drug Prohibition not only plays out on the American stage, but is a focalpoint of US relations with the countries of Latin America. So, as each ofthese countries has to pay the costs of Yankee Imperialism, the tensionbetween neighbors is increasing. The first of the tensions comes from Colombia. Unfortunately, our crusadeagainst drugs has caused the famous cartels of South America and,especially, those of Colombia. Many wonder if we are justified in puttingpressure on these countries just to slow the drug trade. The deaths ofthousands of innocent Colombians were the result of our actions in thesecountries (Evans and Berent, eds. 58). The growth of the cartels,especially the Cali cartel, has led to political corruption in that country. The President Ernesto Samper was said to have taken money from drugtraffickers so that the government would stop other groups from exportingcocaine. He promised in his campaign a fight against drugs, but nobody cantrust a President who took money from the cartels, said David Casas, aresident of Cali, Colombia. This unnecessary death and corruption in othercountries due to United States drug policy sometimes lead to hostilitytoward us (Casas). Because of the problems South American countries havefaced because of Drug Prohibition, Colombias Nobel Prize winning authorGabriel Garca Mrquez has written a manifesto declaring the drug war asuseless (15). Action abroad by the United States has also led to an increase insubversive organizations worldwide. Civil war is currently being threatenedin Bolivia by a coca-growing union. The group, which feels that theBolivian government has been too open to challenges in sovereignty, isfighting Yankee Imperialism and control by the DEA of a coca-growingregion (Epstein 1). In Colombia and Peru, groups like the communist FuerzasArmadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia)and Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), both Communist groups, that survive ondrug money lead such acts as kidnaping foreign visitors, leading bombings onAmerican buisnesses in the country, and attempting to destroy institutionsof governments friendly to the United States (Spiegel 480). This subversionof government can even reach our beauracracy as the CIA is rumored to haveallowed the Nicaraguan Contras to sell drugs in the US to fund theirrevolution against the Sandinistas (CIA 20). Therefore, in South America, our persistence on Drug Prohibition has notonly been unable to prevent the further imports of drugs, but also couldlead to the installation of Communist regimes in the area. Since the othercosts of Drug Prohibition has its base domestically, the conversation willturn to rights and liberties which help to explain why the drug war is notAmerican and why it might not be effective. This requires a discussion onthe role of government. The ultimate end of government is to protect our rights. Weve entered asocial contract with our governments: that we will give our obedience andtaxes in return for protection of our rights. The United Nations classifiesthese rights in three generations: civil, socioeconomic, and solidarityrights (Peterson). Shielding our people from the dangers of a threateningworld, therefore, seems to be an appropriate use of the states power undersocioeconomic rights. The danger in thinking in this manner is that itoverlooks the individuals contributions to the nation. Thesecontributions, either positive or negative, are generally difficult toregulate by broad legislation. In fact, at times, legislation can becounterproductive, trying zealously to protect one right by violating manyothers. We saw in the former U.S.S.R. what can happen when government begins toenforce positive liberty. Positive liberty is different from what weusually think of as liberty, which is negative liberty. A negative libertyis one like the First Amendment which keeps the government from doingsomething, namely limiting your rights to speech and religion. A positiveliberty is one which forces the government to provide some service to itscitizens. An example of a positive liberty is the governmentsresponsibility to protect our inalienable rights. The danger with expandingpositive liberties is that it gives government a more active role inpeoples rights. For that reason most would believe that government shouldnot give itself too many positive liberties as did the Soviet Union(Peterson). Drug Prohibition is an example of a positive liberty because itgives the government the go ahead to do what it must to give us a drug-freeAmerica. However, we should ask the question: is it worth keeping DrugProhib ition as a positive liberty when it infringes upon both our negativeand positive liberties, not the least of which are life and liberty? U. S. District Judge William W. Schwarzer helped explain this when he said endingdrug use is useless if in the process we lose our soul (Trebach andInciardi 29). Today he might say since instead of if since theinjustice and the cost on society of Prohibition is already well ingrainedinto our society. There could be two possible explanations for Drug Prohibition: we mustprotect people from harming themselves, or we want people to avoid drugsbecause extensive drug use harms society. Proponents of Drug Prohibitionthink one or both of these reasons is adequate for continuing Prohibition. The first is based on the peoples right to life, and the second is based onthe right for pursuit of happiness. However, there are fallacies in bothstatements, as will be shown. Before we can admit that our reasoning for Drug Prohibition is wrong, wemust find a better alternative. The solution proposed in this essay is oneof establishing free markets both internationally and domestically. Theproponents of drug decriminalization have basic assumptions about what wouldresult from a free market. For now, we will focus on what proponents ofdrug legalization think the implications of a free drug market would be forthe individual users. These assumptions are that illegal drugs are not asdangerous as currently legal drugs and that the decriminalization of drugswill not greatly increase the number of drug addicts. First, most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as believed, and those thatare truly dangerous will be avoided. This is essential to the argument fordecriminalization since we do not wish to have a large number of people diefrom a policy. However, if we compare the number of people who die annuallyfrom appropriate drugs to that of the number of people who die annuallyfrom illicit drugs, we would be inconsistent to think of the illicit drugsas dangerous. For example, 60 million Americans have tried marijuana and notone of these 60 million have died of an overdose. If this is compared tothe 10,000 people who die annually from overdosing on alcohol, one canassume that marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol. Also, many drugshave minor side-effects when compared to acceptable drugs. One example,heroin, is highly addictive, but when used in a clean environment with cleanneedles, its worst side effect is constipation (Evans and Berent, eds. 24). To Kill a Mockingbird EssayTwo social problems people tie together are crime and racism. Therefore,Drug Prohibition must play a role in racism since it plays a key role incrime. Researchers can show that the more efficient the War on Drugsgets, the more racism that incurs. Black males 15- 24 had a homicide ratenine times higher than white males in the same group. This high rate ofblack-on-black crime has two unfortunate results: first, the black victims,of course, and second, the fear of blacks by many whites. A racist personwould point to this large discrepancy between black and white homicide ratesas some sort of an inferiority (Trebach and Inciardi 34). The sad realityis that Prohibition has created much of this discrepancy. The analogybetween selling drugs and stealing diamonds shows why this difference mightexist. If the death penalty were applied to people who stole diamonds, itwould discourage people from stealing diamonds since the value of thediamonds did not increase. How ever, if the death penalty were applied todrug dealers, there would still be an incentive to sell drugs since theability to receive profit from dealing drugs would increase. The differencewould then be that the people who had very little to lose have even moreincentive to deal drugs. These people who have little to lose aredisproportionally blacks or Hispanics. These forces drive many people intothe most despised positions of society (Trebach and Inciardi 35). Also, the drug laws in the past have been and continue to be tools ofracism. In 1930, before the government had implemented many of the tools ofDrug Prohibition, a Colorado newspaper editor wrote, I wish I could showyou what a small marihuana cigaret sic can do to one of our degenerateSpanish-speaking residents. However, more of the resentment of Mexicansseemed to be because Mexican labor was willing to work for lower wagesthereby producing fear in Anglos over their pocketbooks. The only tool theycould use to keep Mexican labor out of the market was the drug laws (Miller98-99). During the 1950s, many places had laws against addiction. Due tothe nature of addiction, police could and did use this as an excuse toharass African-Americans and Hispanics (Miller 101). This similarlyhappened to the Chinese and opium, a drug previously used by many Anglos(Miller 104). One could see how this could transfer into today as manyminorities complain about selective prosecution, which is understandab leconsidering the racial undertones of the original Drug Prohibition. Since the inner cities receive a far greater share of the crime and racisminvolved with Drug Prohibition, it is much more difficult for a ruralcitizen to understand what these regulations do to the cities, but oneaspect of the Drug Prohibition that does harm to all of us by violatingour civil liberties. A government which calls 35 million of its citizenscriminals for actions which are within the scope of civil liberties is,thereby, violating civil liberties. Government is supposed to allow us todo what we wish if we do not interfere with others (Evans and Berent, eds. 58). With drugs, many proponents of drug decriminalization claim that fewusers when allowed to use drugs in a free market would harm anyone. Thegovernment has also gone beyond this violation of civil liberties into theviolating the democratic process by silencing discussion of the issue. Forexample, no commission has ever been held on the issue. Since thegovernment does not investigate the issue, this suggests that the governmentwishes to remain unaware of the issue (Evans and Berent, eds. 202). Also,many pieces of legislation such as H.R. 135 are very undemocratic. The billasks that no department or agency of the United States Government shallconduct or finance, in whole or in part, any study or research involving thelegalization of drugs (H.R. 135). This kind of legislation banningresearch of the issue is, at least, scary. If the fact that enforcementbreeds poor international relations, undue cost on public health, crime, andracism is bad, the fact that the government is infringing our rights everyday because of Drug Prohibition is atrocious and threatens our freedom. Drug users are not the only ones crying out for their rights in this war. Even Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall called many polices the drugexception to the Constitution. For example, one drug policy is thatcustoms officials can detain people for no less than 24 hours and notrelease them until they agree to deficate in the examiners presence, theyallow the feces to be examinated, and no traces of drug appear. Thesesearches can be done without reason to believe guilt even without anyevidence at all (Trebach and Inciardi 26). Enforcing Drug Prohibition requires invasions into the home since drug useis generally something done in the home (Trebach and Inciardi 26). Inanother case in Illinois, a couple was going on vacation to Florida. Aninformant told the police department that they were going to Florida to buydrugs. The problem was that this was not the usual informant that thepolice picks up from time to time. This informant was totally anonymous,even unknown to the detectives. The conviction was upheld though most theevidence sprouted from the anonymous, invisible informant we associated withthe Soviet Union (Trebach and Inciardi 28-29). Finally, the act offorfeiture is extremely heinous. If, for example, two kids were smokingmarijuana on your property, the police could take all your property. Evenif no charges are brought up against you, you must go to court and proveyour complete innocence (not just reasonable doubt) to reclaim your propertyfrom the government. In fact, half of all people who forfeit their propertynever get charged (Trebach and Inciardi 32). How Drug Prohibition has not been beneficial to society now having beendemonstrated completes the long string of problems that have stemmed fromDrug Prohibition in the realms of international relations and public healthshow where the costs appeared without any consideration having been given tobenefits. In contrast, when the benefits were considered, as was the caseon the issues concerning the drug user and society, the benefits did not panout or were not as important in the first place as the costs that haveresulted have been. Clearly, Drug Prohibition harms international relations. However, one maynot be so willing to accept that it has the profound effects on publichealth and societal problems. If we look back upon Alcohol Prohibition,alcohol was considered as the worst evil, as we think of drugs now. In bothcases, the fear about the denegration of society was not well founded. Thehealth of the users suffered as they would drink stronger and strongeralcohol as to keep the volume transported. Also, the unregulatedcontraband was more dangerous than it would have been. Alcohol Prohibitionalso created crime as Drug Prohibition does as we can see in the appearanceof the mafias like Al Capone which turned Chicago into a city troubled withcrime. The same cries for protection of rights were being heard as the FBIwas seen as invading our rights. Our history demonstrates the evils of prohibition. One should wonder whywe would be willing to fight the righteous fight again when it is neitherrighteous nor possible. Also, public opinion is peculiar given some facts. First, Alcohol Prohibition was dissolved by popular opinion because ofcrime, yet people continue to support Drug Prohibition although it createssimilar crime. Second, that we continue to support politicans who supportProhibition eventhough not one has given a creative solution, or at least,one we have not tried before. Finally, it is strange that people cannot seethrough the problems associated with drugs and not see they are due toProhibition and not use itself. If the drugs were sold at what would be themarket price, the people who steal and rob would not have any reason tosteal, or at least would have to steal less often to support their nowcheaper habit. The people who have become the evil welfare mothers whowaste all their government money on drugs instead of caring for theirchildren could not squander all their precious money on drugs because theywould be so cheap their would be no reason to. All of these terribleproblems Ive discussed, if not created by Prohibition, were great lyintensified by Prohibition. The end of drug laws would mark a never beforeseen improvement in the lives of every citizen. It is unfortunate that ourpoliticans, and even ourselves are too stuborn to even consider it. WORKS CITEDCasas Arcila, David. Student at Fairmont Senior High School. Personal Interview at his home, Fairmont, WV. 21 Sep. 1996. CIA, Contras, and Crack. The Christian Science Monitor. 1 Oct. 1996:20. Crime, Violence, and Drug Use Go Hand-in-Hand. Online. World Wide Web. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/legaliz/claim1.html. 27 Aug. 1996. Duke, Steven B. How Legalization Would Cut Crime. Los Angeles Times. (21Dec. 1993). Online. World Wide Web.http://calyx.com/schaffer/misc/media2.html. 27 Aug. 1996. Epstein, Jack. Coca Czar Protests US War on Drugs. The Christian Science Monitor. 26 Sept. 1996: 1Evans, Rod L., and Berent, Irwin M., eds. Drug Legalization: For and Against. La Salle, Ill: Open Court publishing Company. 1992. Garca Mrquez, Gabriel. The Useless War. New York Times. 27 Feb. 1996:15. H.R. 135. 104th Congress. First Session. Introduced by Rep. Solomon. Online. World Wide Web. http://sunsite.unc.edu/warstop/hr135.html. Miller, Richard Lawrence. The Case for Legalizing Drugs. New York: Praeger Publisher, 1991. Myths of The Myths of Drug Legalization. Online. http://www.goldrush.com/tyedye/drugs.html. Oct. 10, 1996. Peterson, Sophia. Human Rights. West Virginia University. Morgantown, WV, 14 November 1996. Pulp Fiction. Dir. Quentin Tarantino. With John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, and Uma Thurman. Buena Vista Films. 1994. Spiegel, Steven L. World Politics in a New Era. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 1995. Trebach, Arnold S. and Inciardi, James A. Legalize It?: Debating American Drug Policy. Washington: The American University Press, 1993. Wink, Walter. Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Option. Online. http://www.quaker.org/fj/wink.htmil#wink. Oct. 10, 1996. Words/ Pages : 5,352 / 24