Prohibition, War on Drugs - Essay Example

? Prohibition and the War on Drugs: A Discussion of Failed Policies and Key Similarities between These Two One ofthe aspects of current drug policy that continues to provide tension and a level of debate is why certain drugs, such as alcohol are allowed to be produced and consumed within the purview of government regulation whereas other drugs, such as marijuana and other illegal street drugs, are completely and entirely outlawed by the federal government. One might posit that the reason for such a differential has to do with the overall level of harm differential that exists between these drugs; however, when one considers the fact that alcohol is more addictive and destructive than any illegal street drug with the exception of heroin and cocaine, the level of differential between these, from a quality of health standpoint, is negligible. Within such an understanding, the following analysis will seek to compare and contrast the objective and subjective effects of the way in which existing drug policy, inclusive of alcohol allowance and taxation, creates a unique and somewhat unreasonable dynamic. Although it is not the place of this brief analysis to advocate a safe entirely new approach to drug policy within the United States, it is the hope of this research that a greater level of inference with regards to the appropriate response framework that government represents will be able to be inferred. Firstly, it must be understood that current drug policy within the United States is very much akin to Prohibition that existed following WWI. Within such an understanding, the similarities between the way in which the government, prompted by temperance movement activists throughout the nation, outlawed the production and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages within the United States is eerily similar to the way in which the ATF, FBI, and a litany of other federal and local law enforcement entities have worked in tandem since the declared War on Drugs to rid the United States of illegal substances. Anyone with even a cursory introduction to economics can realize that such a practice is ultimately futile. This is of course due to the fact that the more that a government outlaws the production, sale, distribution, and consumption of a specific good or service, then as long as that good or service is demanded, then the price thereof will increase dramatically. This jump in price is the direct result of government pressures and creates a litany of different interests that seek to capitalize on such a lucrative market. As can clearly be noted, Prohibition was soon repealed due to the fact that public outcry against it had reached a tipping point and the inability of the authorities to continue to strain the legal system with such low-level violations had reached a maximum. Yet, from an alternate standpoint, there are those individuals that reference the fact that Prohibition was ultimately effective due to the fact that it drastically reduced the amount of alcohol produced and consumed within the United States during this particular period of time; driving many would-be alcoholics into a level of forced sobriety and benefitting society by extension. In seeking to address which of these view is the more effective, it is the view of this particular author that the government was fighting a losing battle from the very beginning. Due to the fact that controlling aspects of personality and character and what an individual decides to put in their body is a personal choice, the rate of success that the government might have expected at the outset of Prohibition was limited to say the least. From a civil liberties perspective, the current government is engaging in a situation very similar to Prohibition with regards to the ongoing and exorbitantly expensive War on Drugs. Generation after generation of young disenfranchised citizens are being put behind bars for minor drug offenses; a process that ultimately hardens these young men and women and creates a much greater lasting problem for society as these young men and women emerge from their prison terms hardened criminals (Jensen 107). Moreover, as has previously been discussed, the hope that control of the supply will have an impact upon demand has demonstrably been proven to be junk economics. The current price of cocaine within any city in North America is solely contingent upon the demand and is a function of the supply that is so narrowly constricted that it drives up the price; encouraging more and more dealers and producers to integrate with the market. The high cost of maintaining such a robust prison system is ultimately visited upon the taxpayers who in turn penalize themselves twice; once by removing an able bodied worker from the streets and placing them behind bars and twice for incurring a tax bill of at least 40,000 dollars per year in housing, providing medical care, and tending to the security needs that such a prisoner entails. Ultimately, the government has no place determining what an individual should and should not ingest, inject, snort, sniff, inhale, or otherwise put inside their bodies. As a result of this rather libertarian approach, it is the strong belief of this author that the current War on Drugs is a net drain on the resources of the nation; resources that in such a time of economic hardship could most certainly be better spent addressing other more pertinent issues. Rather than penalizing a behavior that cannot be changed, rather than filling prisons with non-violent offenders and in turn prompting them to integrate with other violent offenders, rather than pouring hundreds of millions of dollars down a rabbit hole that has yet to turn a reasonable result, the government would do far better to channel this money towards programs that are aimed at promoting overall health and addiction recovery. Rather than penalizing those individuals who would otherwise pose no threat to society, the government and its interests would be better served by legalizing drugs, managing the trade, and taxing it so that at least some level of mutual benefit can be appreciated within society. However, as the system exists currently, the level of shared benefit that can be had is negligible due to the fact that the government is more focused upon following after the clearly failed policies of the Prohibition era than they are of learning a very painful lesson of the fact that government intervention and regulation with regards to individuals personal choices only leads to creating a cycle of crime and punishment that cannot ever be effectively ended. Whereas it is not the purpose of this author to argue for a level of rampant egalitarianism and anarchy, it must be understood that the decision to criminalize personal behavior that is no more likely to have an adverse affect on another individual than would the process of drinking alcohol is both hypocritical and pointless. Although there is not a singular approach that will solve all the societal ills that can be caused by the use of illicit substances, or even of legal substances such as alcohol or tobacco, it is painfully evident, from the analysis that is been conducted, the current policy does not have a justifiable moral, ethical, or illegal grounding. Drugs, by their very nature, are damaging to the individual as a degree of addiction is able to be retained and the individual user becomes numb to the physiological health ramifications that continued use portends. However, a level of legality or illegality for such an action has little bearing with regards to the behavior that individual is likely to portray. Work Cited Jensen, Eric L., Jurg Gerber, and Clayton Mosher. "Social Consequences Of The War On Drugs: The Legacy Of Failed Policy." Criminal Justice Policy Review 15.1 (2004): 100-121.Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Read More