Legalization of drugs - Term Paper Example

Running head: LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS Legalization of Drugs Affiliation. Legalization of Drugs Should the United s legalize drugs This question has been out in the open for decades, and many individuals argue for this concept. But is this the right way to go In the book Sense and Nonsense About Crime and Drugs: A Policy Guide, the concept of legalizing drugs is addressed. Is it a wise idea to approach the country with such a measure There are strong arguments both for and against this issue. The side that is for legalization states the benefits that both the government and the individuals using the drugs could get. For instance, the government could tax the drugs, and the drugs would have to follow FDA guidelines, just like cigarettes and alcohol. It is often argued that alcohol and cigarettes also have the reputation of being an addictive drug, yet both are legalized. Furthermore, those that want drugs will take the steps necessary to get them, so instead of making them criminals and continuing to overcrowd jails, it might be better to allow them to take the legalized form of the drug, which would probably be much weaker, and regulated, making addiction more difficult. Those who oppose this concept worry about increased addiction as well as the moral and ethics of society. There is a strong Christian movement that is against legalizing drugs, led by the Christian Coalition. Rangel (1998) puts this argument and view forth in his journal article. This coalition has a strong influence on politics, especially the Republican party, and thus this issue has been brought to the forefront many times. Krajicek (1998) discusses the power of the Christian Coalition to influence crime laws in his article, thus backing up the point that religion often does cross over into law and politics. While morality is an understandable concern, this same moral question already exists with alcohol and cigarettes. Therefore, what is the best approach to this concept The War on Drugs seems to be failing. No matter how hard the United States tries as a country, we still struggle with stopping the crossing of drugs into the country, and it is very apparent that this practice continues. If we have not been able to adequately stop this drug problem after trying for so many years, is there another way to end this issue Davey (1998) makes a point of this issue in his arguments. The answer would be yes, and it would focus on the legalization of drugs. Thus, this researcher feels that the answer lies in legalizing drugs. This would not only end the War on Drugs, it would also clear jails (getting rid of drug crimes and opening up overcrowded prisons for those who have committed serious crimes like rape and murder), and it would also allow individuals freedom of choice. Silen (1994) agrees with the concept that adults who do want these drugs, of course if they desire them, will find a way to get them, one way or another. Therefore, it seems that it would be a good idea to take advantage of the situation. The United States already sells damaging and addictive drugs to its people in the form of cigarettes and alcohol. This would only give individuals more of a choice, and people would still be expected to use drugs responsibly-for instance, drinking while intoxicated on any drug is not acceptable. Shapiro (2003) argues, in his journal article, that our country is based on freedom of will and choice, as long as others are not harmed. Therefore, the overall point is that there are several benefits to both people and the government when legalizing drugs, and this step should be taken in order to take advantage of the several advantages present in the situation. One important notion to consider is the fact that the legalizing of drugs also promises to reduce crime. How can this be so, when so many crimes are attributed to drug use First, the regulation of the drug itself promises that the drug will be less potent, and that the amount obtainable can be limited. This makes it more difficult for addicts, or for people to become addicting, and thus cause any trouble while on drugs. Furthermore, those who do follow the laws would be able to participate in the buying and selling of drugs, as it would not be an illegal option for them anymore. Sher (2003) demonstrates this point in his journal article, discussing how the legalization of drugs can help destroy gang wars and violence. Since the drugs will be widely available as a result, it seems likely that they would not carry heavy prices. (Alcohol and cigarettes are still obtainable even to those who live at the poverty level. Thus, there is no reason to assume that other drugs, if they were legalized, would also not be obtainable in a free market economy). Therefore, the prices would become much cheaper than they are now, and more people would be able to afford drugs. This would decrease the need for individuals to steal or murder in order to obtain the drugs, or the money necessary to buy drugs, in order to fuel their habits. Another important fact to consider is that of gangs that participate in drug trades. Basically, this option would be completely removed from the picture, since drugs would be legalized, gangs would no longer be interested in selling them in order to earn a profit. Potter (1998) focuses on this in his writing, stating that the removal of this business would harm the gang's ability to make a profit. Since gangs do often battle over their territory as far as where they sell drugs to their customers, it can be assumed that gang wars would also decrease. Sileo (1994) reminds us of this concept in his journal article, stating that gangs can sell whatever to whomever illegally, and if drugs were legalized, they would actually be monitored. There would be no need for them to fight anymore regarding drugs and turf. Another helpful notion to consider is the fact that the legalization of drugs would also harm the drug cartel industry. These cartels are usually located overseas and many of them interact with terrorist groups, thus posing a double problem to people in the United States. However, if drugs were legalized, cartels would not be able to profit from the selling of drugs, and pass these profits on to terrorists in order to create more havoc in the United States. Perhaps the most obvious fact here is that the selling and purchasing of drugs would no longer be a crime, and thus the individuals who have been caught and thrown into jail for this (a high percentage of the criminal population) would not be considered criminals anymore. This simply act would therefore automatically reduce crime while also solving the problem of the overcrowded prison system. Many people already argue that people with drug problems do not belong in prison; they belong in rehabilitation programs of some sort. Prison should be there for those that have committed very horrific crimes-the buying and selling of drugs is a personal choice and does not seem to harm anybody else's property, except for those involved in the transaction. Take, for instance, the concept of alcohol and the fact it was outlawed in the 1920s. What was the end result of Prohibition We know now that it actually backfired. The black market made alcohol easily obtainable, and more expensive. Therefore, many individuals working behind the scenes, including well known gangsters like Al Capone, made a decent amount of money participating in illegal activities. It is also known that this is how John Kennedy's father earned his fortune, making the Kennedys a very rich family. The existence of these backdoor sales led to the formation of very serious gangs and criminal organizations, including the Mafia. Many were jailed, but many also got away with their crimes, suffering no punishment. However, with the end of Prohibition came the end of this kind of crime. The profits were no longer there for the taking, as alcohol became widely available. Therefore, many gangs were put out of business simply because they had lost the ability to sell their major product. This is the perfect example of what would happen if illegal drugs were also legalized. Since illegal drugs fall into the same type of category as alcohol, with their addictive power and ability to alter the mind (thus the desire for many individuals to seek it out and get pleasure from their drinking habit), it can be assumed that the same thing would occur with the legalization of drugs. Milne (1998) points this out in his writings, suggesting that the legalization of drugs would cut back on the criminal activity available for street gangs. For now, though, with drugs illegal, it appears that drug-related crime is becoming higher. In Miami, for instance, "The President's Commission on Organized Crime estimates a total of seventy drug market murders yearly in Miami alone. Based on that figure and FBI data, a reasonable nationwide estimate would be at least 750 murders a year. Recent estimates from New York and Washington are even higher." (Ostrowski qutd. In Block, 1993, para 21). The culture created by legalized drugs also hurts the youth of the United States. Many children that grow up in the inner city are affected by gangs and criminal organizations involved in the pushing of drugs. Many of these children are poor, and come from a tradition of families that are involved in gangs. For many of them, they become involved in gangs because it becomes a part of survival for them. First, they realize that both they and their families will get protection from the gang. Second, the gang can provide them with the kind of money and profits they would not otherwise be able to obtain, as many of them are living in poverty. It is easy to see why this type of get-rich-quick life would be attractive for them. De Marneffe (2005) makes this point in his article about how drugs affect gang wars. However, if drugs were legalized, this culture would disappear completely, and there would be no need to worry about children and teens being pulled into the crime and drug culture. Another item that could benefit the United States, as well as other countries, is the concept of actually participating in free trade for legalized drugs (Derrida, 1993). This could be another item to expand to the growing list of imports and exports in the United States. Through this, both the buyer and seller would gain. The seller would ultimately profit, as is the point in most trading and selling in businesses, and the buyer would obtain the drugs he or she wanted. Of course, there is the problem of morality here; those that feel the purchasing and using of drugs is immoral will be disturbed by this concept, and the fact that drugs will be able to obtain. Regardless, it is still important to consider that other purchases offend those with other arguments when dealing with other items to buy (Geers, 1995). This includes alcohol and cigarettes, as mentioned earlier, and these drugs are still legal in the United States. However, because the United States is a free market economy, there is a sense of equality here when it comes to free trade. Basically, everybody is now able to legally buy, sell, and obtain the drugs, and thus everybody has the option to use his or her own free will to buy, or to not buy, drugs. Miller (2003) discusses this in his journal article, reminding us as well about the unfairness of the entire issue, and how the federal government hypocritically controls the laws about drugs. Another point of interest is the fact that, the legalization of drugs falls under a basic constitutional right. By legalizing drugs, the government would be able to control how much each person was buying of each drug, thus making it much more difficult for addicts to take more than the allowed dose. Hunt (2003) agrees with this purpose in his journal article. Furthermore, drugs would be FDA regulated and could be made less potent to further decrease the chance for addiction. Why, however, is the use of drugs considered a basic Constitutional right Walter Block (para 2) argues that in our "pursuit of happiness" we can seek out the use of drugs as long as it does not interfere with others' right to lives or properties. However, by banning drugs, we are thus taking away a Constitutional right-that of our own desire to have control over our own bodies. Block further feels that this makes people slaves to drug laws (para 3). Is this true Block does have a case because the use of drugs and the damage one decides to do to one's own body should be up to each adult. The Constitution itself presents the right to control our bodies as long as we do not harm others. Therefore, it seems unconstitutional to keep these drugs illegal. A further item to consider in this discussion is the health of the individuals that actually purchase and use these drugs. This would include the use of clean needles for those who inject drugs, thus helping to cut back on the spread of HIV and AIDS among injecting drug users. Needles can be very difficult for many drug users to obtain, and this creates a grave problem because most of them are willing to reuse needles to get their high instead of foregoing drug use if there are no available needles (Rubin, 1999). Since the Food and Drug Administration would regulate the drugs being produced, any harmful items generally put into the drugs to mask or dilute them would be discarded. For instance, when Prohibition occurred in the 1920s, alcohol was often diluted in ways that caused greater health risks (Block, para 25). This, of course, brought on the demise of several individuals who lost their lives to the poisoned substances. Holahan (1998) makes a point of this in his argument for the legalization of drugs, because the deaths of those who have used illegal drugs is a depressing statistic. Armstrong (2003) also discusses a similar concept. If narcotics were made legal, the quality of the substances could be guaranteed, because drugstores in the United States are expect to sell safe drugs that have gone through several steps of screening. This would help to provide the population with products that would be safe. Therefore, what people would be taking and putting into their bodies could be assured for quality. The result of this would obviously be further deaths from the use of drugs because the drugs would be of premium quality (Time to Get Tough on Youth Crime Scourge, 1997). While those that argue against the legalization of drugs often point out the are taking the moral road, the question of morality is really a null and void factor in this debate. Why is this so The main reason for this is the fact that it is also immoral to tell grown adults what they can and cannot do with their lives. Eialken (1996) pushes this fact in his research, thus pointing out as well that crime is also a free choice. To be moral, we must give individuals the right to choose and allow them to do what they need to do to pursue their happiness, as the Constitution states. Glastrics (2002) also supports this issue in his research, stating that illegalizing drugs and the Constitution do not mix correctly. We must also allow them the right to free choice as far as their bodies are concerned, and not doing this goes against the Constitution itself, as discussed earlier. Thus, by arguing for this "moral" stance, people are actually arguing against the basic rights provided by Americans by the Constitution. Sileo (1994) mentions the moral stance in his writing, pointing out, as the researcher has here, both sides of this issue. When this fact is considered, the argument of the moralists seems immoral itself. The right to do what one wants when one is not necessarily affecting others is not something that can be judged completely moral or immoral, especially when there are several other issues surrounding that basic notion. Therefore, this researcher feels that the legalizing of illegal drugs has several important benefits for both people in the population and the United States government. The argument against the legalization of drugs generally falls on morality, but it must be remembered that individuals who want drugs will find a way to get them, moral or not. Furthermore, the United States is already selling legalized and harmful addictive drugs in the form of alcohol and cigarettes. Thus, the addition of more legalized drugs would simply fall into this category. It would also provide individuals with their basic Constitutional right and choice of freedoms as far as drugs are concerned. Furthermore, when comparing this with Prohibition, we can also see that the legalization of drugs would reduce crime. On top of this, it would also allow children of poverty, many who come from the inner-city, to avoid being taken into a life of crime in order to defend themselves and survive in their neighborhoods (Piphor, 1993). It would make the existence of organized gangs that make their livelihood out of illegal drugs basically nonexistent, because they would lose their main product of sale. It seems that much good could come out of this decision, so it is important to push politicians to act, and to remind them of the good that could come out of such a measure. Works Cited Armstrong, A. (2003). Drug Courts and the De Facto Legalization of Drug Use for Participants in Residential Treatment Facilities. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94(1), 133+. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5008140579 Block, Walter. (1993). "Drug Prohibition: A Legal and Economic Analysis." Journal of Business Ethics 12: 689-700. Davey, J. D. (1998). The Politics of Prison Expansion: Winning Elections by Waging War on Crime. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=15434188 De Marneffe, P. (2003). Against the Legalization of Heroin. Criminal Justice Ethics, 22(1), 34+. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5010967144 Derrida, J. (1993). The Rhetoric of Drugs. an Interview. Differences, 5(1), 1-25. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=96479041 Elikann, P. T. (1996). The Tough-On-Crime Myth: Real Solutions to Cut Crime. New York: Insight Books. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=100852153 Geers, T. R. (1995). Legalize Drugs and Stop the War on People. Education, 116(2), 235+. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5000385948 Glastris, P. (2002, March). Why Can't Democrats Get Tough Bush's White House Is Partisan, Imperial and Ruthless, but Not Invulnerable. Washington Monthly, 34, 38+. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5000715395 Holahan, W. L. (1998). Getting Tough on Crime: Exercises in Unusual Indifference Curves. Journal of Economic Education, 29(1), 14-22. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=95863085 Hunt, L. H. (2003). Epilogue: What Good Are Drugs Anyway. Criminal Justice Ethics, 22(1), 46+. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5010967152 Krajicek, D. J. (1998). Scooped! Media Miss Real Story on Crime While Chasing Sex, Sleaze, and Celebrities. New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=99698980 Milne, K. (1996, November 22). Tough on Criminologists. New Statesman, 125, 26+. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5000446076 Miller, C. (2002). A Death by Any Other Name: The Federal Government's Inconsistent Treatment of Drugs Used in Lethal Injections and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Journal of Law and Health, 17(2), 217+. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5009288296 Pipho, C. (1993). States Get Tough on Juvenile Crime. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 286+. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5001674719 Potter, C. B. (1998). War on Crime: Bandits, G-Men, and the Politics of Mass Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=28575659 Rangel, C. B. (1998). Why Drug Legalization Should Be Opposed. Criminal Justice Ethics, 17(2), 2. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5001409653 Rubin, E. L. (Ed.). (1999). Minimizing Harm: A New Crime Policy for Modern America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=95111188 Shapiro, D. (2003). Individual Rights, Drug Policy and the Worst-Case Scenario. Criminal Justice Ethics, 22(1), 41+. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5010967148 Sher, G. (2003). On the Decriminalization of Drugs. Criminal Justice Ethics, 22(1), 30+. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5010967140 Sileo, C. C. (1994, May 2). Violent Offenders Get High on Crime. Insight on the News, 10, 12+. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5000194159 Time to Get Tough on Youth Crime Scourge. (2007, August 23). The Daily Mail (London, England), p. 14. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5022429701 Read More