Legalizing Cannabis - Case Study Example

Legalizing Cannabis Table of Contents Introduction Several countries throughout the world are working to decriminalize or legalise less harmful drugs such as cannabis (marijuana). It has been suggested, and in some cases demonstrated, that legalizing or at least decriminalizing marijuana can help to reduce violent crimes and significantly decrease the number of people incarcerated for drug use which would allow more individuals to remain contributing members of society. It would free up funds and law-enforcement manpower to instead combat the more urgent societal issues. Although not legal in the Netherlands, cannabis is openly tolerated and can be both purchased and consumed in one of several Amsterdam ‘coffee houses.’ Inexplicably, the city has not been thrown into anarchy which, evidently, is what the opponents of cannabis legalisation are afraid of. The evidence demonstrates that legalizing cannabis would prove a benefit to society, evidence which is well-known throughout the scientific, political and public arena but this collective knowledge has yet to be acted upon. This discussion will examine the issue of legalisation drawing from European, British and American experiences. In addition, because cannabis is often associated with harder forms of drugs by legalisation opponents, it will briefly discuss plausible reasons why all drugs should be at least decriminalised if not made fully legal. The Drug War A report created by Transform1, a non-profit UK drug policy think tank, demonstrates how criminalization of certain drugs has created crime, undermined public health and promotes social exclusion while proving ineffective in eliminating domestic markets. The foundation recommends instead a society in which all drugs are regulated and controlled through the use of specialized pharmacies and licensed retailers instead of black market street vendors and an uncontrolled clientele. The reason for this, they say, is that the war on drugs has led to an uninformed hysteria among the general population, an irrational opposition to less harmful substances, a spike in organised crime and associated criminal activity. By regulating and controlling drugs, Transform suggests that prison populations could be cut in half, considerably reducing the funds spent on maintaining and sustaining these populations. In addition, crime factors would be reduced as the primary activity of organised crime would now be regulated, crime wars would become obsolete and crimes associated with drug use such as prostitution and burglaries for drug money would be further reduced as the price of substances becomes more stablised. With an absence of gang wars in urban areas, urban regeneration would have greater effect, funds saved from the prison system could be redirected toward more support in the community and police forces would be freed from drug enforcement programs to be able to concentrate more completely on reducing other crime as well as gaining a better relationship with the general populace. “Transform is seeking to reform policies that have attempted to control drug use through criminal justice enforcement, a failed approach that has been enormously destructive. Rather than eliminating drugs from society, drug prohibition has served only to criminalize millions of users and to create lucrative and dangerous illegal markets controlled by organised criminals.”2 No Harm Theory A report in The Economist 3 expressly states concerns regarding a rising drug using and dependent population if these drugs should be made more available. While acknowledging that the price of drugs is artificially high due to the difficulties of circumventing the law, authors of this report indicate that it is precisely because of the high cost and difficulty to obtain that prevents more individuals from experimenting with them, thus becoming addicted, either physically or psychologically. Although these arguments can also be made for other substances that are currently legal, voters have argued that it is not necessary to bring in more potentially harmful substances into legal circulation at this time. To support the argument in favor of legalisation, authors pull in the theories of John Stuart Mill, who espoused that adult citizens should have the right to make their own choices regarding whether or not to participate in harmful activity as long as it does no harm to others, a theory that has been largely ignored in the decisions regarding alcohol and tobacco, but not cannabis.4 Economic Affects of Criminalisation The enormous amount of money generated from the distribution of cannabis and other illegal drugs stimulates governmental and judicial corruption. This must be taken into account when calculating economic effects as this and other associated costs of cannabis prohibition undermines the very structure of society. In 2000, a U.K. Home Office study estimated the social and economic impact of illegal drugs costs U.K. citizens between £10.1 and £17.4 billion. The study found that 70 percent of this number is ‘victim costs of crime’ and not a result of drug use itself. 5 Typical ‘wisdom’ dictates that governments interfere in drug distribution because of the negative societal effects involved in its use and sale. Prohibition, one of the most common policies utilized, has evidently not succeeded as intended. This practice has not eliminated drug traffic. It has however, altered the arrangement of supply and demand by forcing the illegality of this market. Some negative social aspects can be attributed to both legal and illegal drug use. The acquisition of drugs in the illegal market almost certainly creates more negative affects than would its distribution under a legalised system.6 The additional social ills associated with the illegal drug trade include violence with no legal recourse and the criminalization of those who purchase in the illegal market, crowding prisons and resulting in the early release of violent criminals, both a revenue draining reality. Illegal drug trade also increases health care costs for all as there are no regulations regarding strength and quality of illegal drugs. Prohibition has probably reduced the scope of drug distribution but has also ensured negative economic effects. Finding the balance between these two effects is one of the key considerations in the welfare analysis of drug policy.7 A study of illicit drugs necessitates some consideration regarding the characteristics of addiction, especially dangerous addiction. According to economic theory, a product is normally defined as addictive “if an increase in the stock of past consumption results in an increase in current consumption.”8 If current consumption increases, the economic benefits of legalisation must be proportionately altered, but overall benefits to society remain regardless. The legalisation of drugs enables society to raise tax revenue. Decriminalizing negates the offsetting tax benefits and serves only to legitimise drug usage which encourages greater consumption leading to adverse affects to the economy while illegal supplies remain at issue. The legalisation of drugs has been proven economically and socially beneficial in overall, general terms.9 Current Legal Situation While cannabis remains illegal in the UK, it is no longer mandatory that casual users of the drug must be arrested when caught. Instead, arrest can be detained until exacerbating circumstances arise, such as the use of the drug in the presence of minors. This move was made, according to Home Secretary David Blunkett, “to free up police resources to fight hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine.”10 Since then, marijuana has been reclassified as a Class C drug in this country. “Class C is reserved for drugs that are considered the least harmful such as marijuana, tranquilizers, less potent stimulants and mild analgesics.”11 The U.K. system is somewhere between the more relaxed laws of The Netherlands and the stricter laws of the U.S. but are still among the harshest in Europe. Though cannabis is technically illegal to possess and sell in both nations, casual users in the U.S. face long prison sentences. By contrast, in The Netherlands, individuals over the age of 18 who smoke it discretely are not arrested and possession of five grams or the cultivation of less than five plants is not prosecuted. In addition, there are several coffee shops and cafes that are licensed to sell cannabis within their shops and are permitted to hold up to 100 grams behind their counter and another 500 grams in storage. A law passed in 2003 also permits doctors to prescribe marijuana for medicinal use through local pharmacies.12 An Amsterdam coffee shop menu13 Cannabis and Crime Research has provided evidence to suggest that people who use drugs are more prone than nonusers to commit crimes. It also confirms the fact that those arrested were commonly under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offence and that the trade of drugs produces violence. However, this research remains ambiguous and ill-defined and therefore misleading in its conclusions. Assessing the characteristics and degree of the influences that drugs have on criminal activity requires that dependable information about the offence and the offender is presented and that definitions are consistent. However, because of inconsistent and problematical data, it is impracticable to access quantitatively to what extent that drugs encourage the incidence of crime.14 The association between alcohol and violence, according to various studies, epitomizes a correlation that is confounded by other dynamics such as socio-demographic and personality characteristics. Similar analysis of cannabis use and its associated delinquency establishes that people who used marijuana were more likely than those who did not to simultaneously engage in non-violent delinquency. However, “prior marijuana use did not increase the risk of later violent or non-violent delinquency.”15 Although cannabis is not as addictive as some of the harder drugs, the market for cannabis is an unknown aspect. The rise of cannabis popularity and its increase in price may spawn additional violence related to sale of the drug. Economically motivated crimes will most probably occur with increases in prices for higher-quality cannabis. “The fact that the newest generation of drug users has largely avoided the use of hard drugs (such as cocaine and heroin) has optimistic implications for their future. That is, this generation should experience fewer negative health outcomes and less involvement in criminal activities.”16 However, many individuals may still be forced into crime as a means of economic survival because of poor socialization, economic hardship, and the lack of opportunities. In examining the degree of association between crime and drug use, it must be remembered that only a small group of individuals (five percent of the population) are criminal offenders or heavy drug users. Evidence has proven that drug trafficking is the major social issue, not drug use and the solution to drug’s blight on society is legalization as prohibition is the root of criminal activity much as in the days of alcohol prohibition. Benefits of Decriminalisation Decriminalisation implies different meanings to different people. To some it means simply legalisation which takes the profit, thus the crime out of the drug trade. One interpretation involves three steps. The first is to make drugs such as cannabis legal under restricted circumstances, but not as controlled as it is now. Secondly, sound reasoning should prevail in substance abuse policies. The third aspect is to manage our tax money more wisely and discontinue wasting billions of dollars on criminal law enforcement techniques. Instead, these funds should be diverted into treatment and abuse prevention. Varying degrees of decriminalisation is often confused with total legalisation. Alcohol is legal, for example, but it is not legal to operate a car under its influence or to sell it to those less than 21 years of age. Conversely, people speak of cocaine and the opiates as illegal, but doctors prescribe these drugs every day.17 Much of Europe is currently undergoing a decriminalization program as a result of European unification under terms set forth in the Frankfort Accord. A comparison of comparable cities such as New York and Liverpool, with comparable drug use statistics, can prove enlightening regarding the effects decriminalization might have on the United States. According to Schaffer,18 heroin and cocaine addicts in New York suffer from tremendous medical problems, remain unemployed criminals creating a major problem in crime statistics and usually have their children removed from the home to live in miserable conditions. Thousands of babies are permanently damaged every year by their mother’s drug use and sixty percent of all intravenous drug users are infected with AIDS. “In the United States, drug use is illegal and the police hunt down drug users to throw them in prison. Four thousand people died from illegal drugs in the US last year and we now have more than 600,000 people in prison on drug charges.”19 By comparison, Liverpool’s heroin and cocaine addicts suffer few medical problems, are gainfully employed taxpayers who cause little additional crime and manage to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. Health authorities report little damage to babies as a result of their mother’s drug use and only one percent of the intravenous drug using population is infected with AIDS, contributing little to the spread of the disease. “In Liverpool, England, the police do not arrest drug users any more. Instead, health care workers seek them out and encourage them to come in for counseling and medical treatment. Both counseling and medical treatment are provided on demand. The medical treatment often includes maintenance doses of narcotics under the management of a physician.”20 March to legalise cannabis in London21 Conclusion Concerns over legalization center around the questions of who, what, where and how these drugs would be distributed, which are questions that have been satisfactorily answered in other countries as well. Although the issue of what to do about dangerous, possibly addicting drugs such as heroin and cocaine have long been issues within many countries, the approaches taken to stem the tide have had widely varying results. Particularly, the prohibition approach taken by countries such as the United States have led to an astronomical increase in the rates of crime and numbers of incarcerated individuals as a result while having little to no impact upon the actual availability and usage rates within the country’s borders. The Netherlands allows for cafes and coffee houses with special licensing permits to distribute marijuana and doctors have the ability to work with patients who are addicted to heroin. Company employees are not fired for having inhaled at lunch, but are able to readily find counselors if they find they have become psychologically addicted to marijuana’s effects. However, the choice is not simply a black and white issue of whether or not to legalise. While drug laws are relaxed regarding the Class C narcotics in England and the Netherlands, they still remain against the law. The decision whether or not to arrest a person found to be in possession of marijuana in England remains in the hands of the policeman in charge and can depend upon a variety of factors. By bringing lower-level drugs such as cannabis within the context of the law, prices are stabilised and reduced, distribution points are available yet closely monitored, client base remains restricted to a higher degree and law enforcement is freed to pursue more harmful and dangerous crime. References Becker, G.S., Grossman, M ., and Murphy, K.M . (1994). “An Empirical Analysis of Cigarette Addiction.” American Economic Review. Vol. 84, N. 3, pp. 396-418. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (1994). “Drugs and Crime Facts, 1994.” ONDCP Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse. Rockville, MD: NCJRS, p. 33. “Case for Legalisation, The.” (26 July 2001). The Economist. Clark, Andrew E. (May 2003). “The Economics of Drug Legalisation.” Paris: DELTA (Departement et Laboratoire d’Economie Theorique et Appliquee). “Cannabis Laws Eased by Blunkett.” (11 July 2002). BBC News. Retrieved 17 March 2007 from < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2120116.stm> “Cannabis Protest in Capital.” (6 May, 2000). BBC News. Available 17 March 2007 from Coughlin, Geraldine. (1 September 2003). “Dutch to Prescribe Cannibis.” BBC News. Retrieved 17 March 2007 from < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3196849.stm> Derzon, James H. & Lipsey, Mark W. (1999). Derzon, James H. & Lipsey, Mark W. (1999). “A Synthesis of the Relationship of Marijuana Use with Delinquent and Problem Behaviors.” School Psychology International. Vol. 20, pp. 57–68. Doyle, Chris & Smith, Jennifer C. (April 1997). “Crime and Drugs: An Economic Approach.” London: London Business School. DRCNet Foundation (Drug Reform Coordination Network). (3 June 2005). “Marijuana: Milton Friedman and 500 Economists Call for Debate on Prohibition as New Study Suggests Regulation Could Save Billions.” Drug War Chronicle. Washington D.C.: Stop the Drug War. Drug Policy Alliance. (2006). “England.” Drug Policy Around the World. Retrieved 17 March 2007 from Golub, Andrew L. & Johnson, Bruce D. (1999). “Cohort Changes in Illegal Drug Use Among Arrestees in Manhattan: From the Heroin Injection Generation to the Blunts Generation.” Substance Use & Misuse. Vol. 34, N. 13, pp. 1733–63. Lemming. (n.d.). “Coffee Shop.” Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory. Retrieved 17 March 2007 from Nadelmann, Ethan. (1990). “Should Some Illegal Drugs be Legalized?” Science and Technology. Vol. 6, pp. 43-46. Schaffer, Clifford A. (n.d.). “Basic Facts About the War on Drugs.” Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Retrieved 17 March 2007 from Transform. (2005). “About Us: What Does Transform Hope to Achieve.” Bristol: Transform Drug Policy Foundation. Read More