The Paper Tiger Reasons for Legalizing Drugs - Essay Example

The Paper Tiger Reasons for Legalizing Drugs There is no controversy surrounding the fact that drug use in America is a national epidemic. Yet while many people call for continued and increased enforcement efforts, others call for the legalization of many drugs that are currently outlawed. Many of the advocates for the legalization of drugs are thoughtful people that make a convincing argument if their statements go unexamined. However, when scrutinized, the case for legalizing drugs is a thin facade based on faulty reasoning. Most of the case made for legalization rests on the issues of ethics, control, crime, and cost. Legalization advocates distort these issues and as Bennett says, "They are, at bottom, a series of superficial and even disingenuous ideas that more sober minds recognize as a recipe for a public policy disaster" (P8). Legalization arguments are paper tigers that, when confronted by reason, leave no doubt that drugs should not be legalized. Advocates will often point to our Constitution to justify the stand that all people should be free to ruin their life with a drug habit. Of course while no one but the most radical elements advocate legalization for children, assuming that it only applies to adults stretches the meaning of freedom to the point that it becomes unrecognizable. Adults are not simply individuals living in a vacuum, unaffected by and having no impact on the world around us. People have families, communities, cultures, and societies that they are a part of. A person's freedom of choice must be carefully balanced against societies obligation to protect all of its members. The myth that the abuser is the only victim of drug addiction simply does not apply to the parent who is neglecting their children because they are too high to understand the responsibilities of adequate parenting. Legalization advocates often link the ideal of freedom with ethics. They point to the inherent unfairness and hypocrisy of a government that condones alcohol use but condemns marijuana users to prison or probation. However, this argument merely draws attention away from the real issue. The controversy is not the safety and status of alcohol. The issue should remain focused on the legalization of drugs and not an issue of which drug is better or worse. Proponents likewise point to the unfairness in the application of the drug laws as a reason for legalization. They cite the disproportionate number of minorities and poor in prison for violating the drug statutes. Milton Friedman, a leading legalization advocate, asks, "Can any policy, however high-minded, be moral if it leads to widespread corruption, imprisons so many, has so racist an effect" (P14}. While his sympathy may be admirable, his reasoning is flawed. If police forces are using racism or a policy of corruption to enforce the law, then that is the issue that needs to be addressed. It is not the drug law; it's the application that needs examined. If a preponderance of murderers on death row are minorities, and they probably are, no one would advocate legalizing murder, and we should not legalize drugs in a misguided effort to correct deficiencies in our enforcement efforts. Our current strategy of enforcement has resulted in a ballooning population of prison inmates, many who are there as either a direct or indirect result of drug addiction. Opponents of strict drug enforcement question whether we can afford the continued incarceration of drug offenders (Currie, P10). The real question is; can we afford not to Crimes resulting from drug use often fall into two categories; the property crime committed to get money to purchase drugs, and the crime committed during an altered state of mind and loss of rational behavior. Bennett tells us that if drugs were legalized, "drug use would soar" (P13). The crimes that result from the drug user's impaired judgment would increase proportionately. But would legalization reduce property crime Advocates would have us believe that the greater access to a legal supply would result in lower prices and therefore reduce property crime. Once again, the pro-legalization movement has offered an over-simplified analysis of the life and mind of a drug abuser. There is no guarantee that drugs would be any less expensive if they were legal. Increased taxes, market manipulation, and drug company greed may have a minimal effect on the overall cost. But even assuming the advocates are correct and the cost drops by one-half or two-thirds, it will still not reduce the need for the addict to commit property crimes. With legalization the number of addicts will swell, their amount of use will increase to match the lower cost, and the overall effect will be an increase in crime. Lower prices, according to Bennett, would "just be a way of subsidizing their habit, as they would continue to rob and steal to pay for food, for clothes, for entertainment" (P15). Lowering the cost and increasing availability would have the opposite desired effect of reducing crimes against property. Legalization would likewise be ineffective at reducing black market crime and criminal gang activity. Bennett contends that most drug dealers are not getting wealthy from drugs and reminds us that, "Many of them work as prostitutes or small-time criminals to supplement their drug earnings" (P9). Rather than being forced out of business, they would be forced into other markets. Minors, who would be denied access to legalized drugs, would be the most readily available customers for the dealers to exploit. The proliferation of legal drugs would open the door for counterfeit merchandise and stolen products. Drug dealers and gang members will not give up their life of crime to pursue a business career if drugs became legal. It is more likely that many people currently pursuing productive employment would fall prey to the lure of cheap and easily obtained drugs. The morality of the war on drugs has often been questioned by the assertion that drug abuse is a health concern and should not be viewed as a legal issue. While a case may be made that drug addicts suffer from mental illness or that addiction is a disease, advocates once again fail to thoroughly examine the forces that drive a productive citizen to become a drug addict, or why an addict seeks treatment. A person becomes an addict by the repeated use of drugs. The more readily available that the drugs are, the greater the chances are that the person will become addicted. Once addicted, most users will choose to continue to use drugs rather than seek treatment. This is true today in a system that discourages drug use with high cost, legal problems, and the shortage of supply that users have to contend with. Wilson warns us that addicts, "want only short-term help after a bad crash, once stabilized and bathed, they are back on the street hustling" (P2). Addicts seek treatment to avoid jail, bankruptcy, and the exposure to criminal elements in unfamiliar neighborhoods. Legalization would remove these motivating factors and greatly reduce the number of addicts seeking voluntary rehabilitation. Treatment that is coerced and mandated by the legal system is the best hope for the long-term recovery of the addict. In this controversial issue over the legalization of drugs there is common ground. Everyone agrees that America has a drug problem. Legalization apologists would have us believe that drug use is rooted in poverty and oppression, yet fail to explain the residents of the Betty Ford Clinic. Defeatists contend that the war on drugs is a lost cause and are ready to surrender future generations to the ubiquitous hold of drug addiction. There is no doubt that legalized drugs would result in greater numbers of addicts that are more addicted than they are today. Crime, rather than decreasing, would increase in proportion to the larger numbers of addicts and the increased quantities consumed. Conceding that drug use is a health issue does little to encourage an addict to seek treatment, and their best hope is through the coercion by the enforcement of the legal system. Legalization advocates offer nothing of substance in the effort to combat drug abuse. Are current enforcement efforts winning the war on drugs Currie contends that deterrence and incarceration do little to dissuade the hardened drug user (P6). However, the approach can contain the problem and it is holding the line. In the first two decades of the "War on Drugs", opiate use leveled off and heroin use by young blacks in Harlem was reduced by more than 65 percent (Wilson, P5). The rationalization of legalization is no more than a convenient way to turn our back on the problem and admit defeat. We must continue our enforcement efforts and not give in to the paper tiger arguments that are proposed by the legalization advocates. Works Cited Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Bedau, eds. Contemporary and Classic Arguments. 1st ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2005. Bennett, William J. "Drug Policy and the Intellectuals." Barnet and Bedau XXX-YYY Currie, Elliott. "Toward a Policy on Drugs." Barnet and Bedau XXX-YYY Friedman, Milton. "There's No Justice in the War on Drugs." Barnet and Bedau XXX- YYY Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs." Barnet and Bedau XXX-YYY Read More