Legalization of Drugs - Essay Example

20 Mar 2006 Legalization of drugs Introduction: The reason why the issue of legalization of drugs is so important isbecause it has a far reaching impact on society in the areas of law and order, medicine, economics, politics, families and the lives of the individuals concerned. While a few years ago there would be very few who would support the legalization of drugs in any form, in today's time, there is a strong wave of public opinion supporting the legalisation of drugs in some form or the other. Recent polls show this trend. A poll in Rhode Island which showed that 71% of respondents supported legalization of all drugs and 26% supported legalization of drugs except for hard drugs. Only 1% favoured the current scenario to continue with only alcohol and tobacco being legal. A CNN poll showed that a vast majority of Americans favoured the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. These are times where the issue needs careful deliberation because any decisions taken could have far reaching positive or negative effects. More importantly the consequences of any such decision could be irreversible. Literature review: To gain clarity on the issue we will review three articles which give different perspectives. The first is an article from the Economist which appeared on Jul 26 2001 in the print edition entitles 'The case for legislation'. As the title suggests the article is in favour of legislation Before the article presents the case for legalization there is an honest admission of the terrifying adverse physical and psychological effects of drug use. The fact that drug laws do have an impact on the availability of drugs is acknowledged. It also admits that if drugs are accessible more people will experiment with them. The basis for the case promoted here rests on two arguments - one of principal and the other practical. The principle propagated is the right to individual freedom which was articulated by John Stuart Mill the British liberal philosopher. According to Mill the individual is sovereign over himself as long as no harm is done to others. Action on this count is supported by the argument that the principle has already been adopted by the government in the case of alcohol and of nicotine.The practical argument comes from the fact that drug bans encourage illegal trade, corrupt political institutions and criminal regimes. The poor are more affected by the laws and punishments. The lack of legislation prevents control of drug use and quality leading to use by minors, increased dangers to users because of poor quality and a premium on selling strength causing hard drugs to be preferred because of the difficulty in procurement. Lack of data because of the ban also prevents a better understanding of the physical effects of drug use. Distribution of drugs could be done using the models of caffeine, alcohol and prescribed drugs - depending on which is best suited. The article provides a good overview of the arguments that the pro-legalization lobby present to promote their case. For sources the author primarily uses known facts. Certain statements lack credible sources, although they may be true. The statement that nicotine's addictive power is greater than that of heroine needs a credible source that is missing. The statement about America's imprisonment rate for drug offences also requires credible sources to be confirmed. The second article that we review is entitled "Legalise Drugs Now!" by Meaghan Cussen published in the American Journal of Economics and society in July 2000. Once again this is a pro-legalization article which is extremely well researched and written. The article enumerates several arguments in favour of legalisation namely the protection of civil liberties thanks to the free choice of use and trade of drugs, reduction in crime thanks to the reduced role of the drug mafia, reversal of the Potency Effect - meaning the tendency to use more potent drugs because of scarcity, health benefits because of regulation of quality and cleaner needles preventing among other things the spread of HIV/AIDS, societal benefits because children and youth will no longer be exposed to criminals in the drug business and government functionaries will no longer become corrupt on account of the drug trade. The writer argues that what should be prohibited is antisocial behaviour that may arise out of drug use. She also advocates the saving of taxpayers' money that goes into drug enforcement. She also argues that the best way to contain drug criminals is by draining their source of income and deflating their profit. By categorising drugs as a necessity for the users rather than a luxury the author argues that the price elasticity of drugs is low hence easy availability and affordability will not lead to greater use. Finally she points out the inconsistencies in the laws which accept alcohol and nicotine use on one hand but prohibit drugs. According to her the negative effects of drug use are unquantifiable just like the negative effects of alcohol, nicotine, ice-cream, fried foods, gossiping and adventure sports. Hence all these fall outside the purview of the law and must be addressed by private non-profit groups. The author has used a lot of credible data in supporting her point of view. Data like the case of Hong Kong where there were no cases of HIV among drug users because needles are freely available in drug stores are powerful and credible arguments in favour of regulation. However it must be noted that most of her sources are from the pro-legalization lobby and though that is no reason to doubt their credibility there is paucity of neutral data used to support her arguments which could have helped her cause. In my opinion the most powerful argument in support of legalization which comes out in both the above articles is the inconsistency in the law which treats alcohol and tobacco or nicotine differently from drugs. All the other arguments are indirect consequences of legislation or lack of it, but the actual experience of the legalization of alcohol becomes a case for the legalization of drugs. As far as crime and other adverse effects are concerned, there could be alternative ways of dealing with them. The issues that need to be pondered are whether the currently illegal drugs and alcohol (and nicotine) are similar in everyway, and whether the experience with the legalized drugs has actually been a positive one. Both the above articles acknowledge that smoking and alcohol have negative effects, but they use the indirect outcomes of reduced crime and better regulation as justification for their legalization. Is the fact that the negative effects are unquantifiable enough justification for legalization The third article deals with some of these practical issues as well as the philosophical one of civil liberties. The article is entitled "Don't legalise drugs" written by Theodore Dalrymple in Spring 1997 and published in the City Journal. Dalrymple is against legalization as the title suggests. He addresses the issue of civil liberty by stating that no one can actually indulge in drugs without affecting those around them like their spouse, children, neighbours or employers. Hence it is impossible to apply Mills principle in this case. Regarding the inconsistencies in the law permitting the consumption of alcohol while banning heroine his point is that it is better to be safe than sorry. While we have seen the effects of alcohol being legalized, we may have quite different consequences of having drugs legalized which we may not be able to reverse.He argues that certain freedoms are more important than others and we would be wise to sacrifice the less important ones in favour of order. Drug taking according to him comes in the latter category. As far as prohibition causing criminalization the writer agrees, but he points out that similarly the illegality of stealing creates thieves. So that cannot become a case for common ownership of all goods. The author refers to his experience with drug dealers who he met in prison. He doubts that they would return to respectable life because of legalization. The argument that those who enter crime to fund their drug use will reduce criminal activity if these drugs are available easily is countered by his experience that numerous prisoners were on prescribed methadone when they committed the crime. Crime will still happen because addicts will still want to procure drugs that are illicit and also will continue criminal activity to fund their living since the drugs make them incapable of pursuing a meaningful living. Dalrymple disagrees with the theory that drugs are price inelastic. In case of alcohol he quotes an experience that proves otherwise. He also emphatically states that the reason for violence among drug users is not just the prohibition, but also the very use of the drug itself. He counters the argument that the losing war of the establishment on drug use is enough reason to legalize them by pointing out that the losing war of medicine over death does not justify the abandonment of medical research. What gives Dalrymple credibility in the statements that he makes is his first hand experience as a doctor who is exposed to drug users. Most of his arguments are well thought out except for his assumption that availability of drugs will eventually result in a major increase in drug users. His theory that criminals will continue to push drugs to all susceptible population does not hold water especially in the light of the alcohol experience. However his arguments on the cause of violence in drug users, the unknown consequences of legalization, and the application of Millers principle of civil liberties are well thought out and well expressed. Discussion and Conclusion: The justification for legalization on the basis of the philosophical argument is clearly unfounded on the basis of the arguments provided by the writers above. It is clear that the principle of individual freedom and right does not apply here because drug use affects others. However it is clear that legalization can reduce criminalization, and ensure regulation. Mishaps, disease and even death because of unregulated use will reduce. There will be a reduction of organized crime because of the reduced profitability. I do not believe that the drug criminals will consider it profitable enough to push the drugs to minors and other susceptible groups as an alternative and this will scale down the level of criminal activity. The alcohol experience is a pointer to this. The issue that seals the matter for me is the uncertainty of the actual effects of legalization. There is not enough experiential data to conclusively confirm the outcome of legalization. Experiences in places like Amsterdam where drugs are relatively easier to procure are not completely positive with the city continuing to suffer from violence and crime. The level of elasticity of drugs is still to be exactly ascertained and we cannot yet safely conclude that there is enough information to prevent unhealthy experimentation among susceptible groups. So while I am against outright legalization, I am in favour of controlled dispensation under supervision. I agree that it is necessary to remove the stigma of drug use so that an effective solution can be found for those suffering from drug addiction. I also believe that drug prescription of certain drugs like marijuana and morphine should be allowed for medical purposes. References Cussen, Meaghan. "Legalize Drugs Now!" The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, July 2000, 20 Mar 2006, Dalrymple, Theodore. "Don't legalize drugs" City Journal, 1997, 20 Mar 2006, 'DEA Guide Tells "How To Hold Your Own in a Drug Legalization Debate"', Newsbriefs, Nov 1994, 20 Mar 2006, Paul, Pamela. "American Demographics: Medical Opinion - legalization of medical marijuana", Findarticle, 1 Jun 2003, 20 Mar 2006, "The case for legislation." The Economist, 26 July 2001, 20 Mar 2006, Read More