Drugs in a Legalized vs Illegal Society - Research Paper Example

Drug Addiction and Usage in a Legalized vs. Illegal Society Drug Addiction and Usage in a Legalized vs. Illegal Society Drug regulation poses a challenge for the entire society. How can reprimanding a person for behavior that injures or harms only him-self or her-self be explained and justified? Therefore, instead of criminalizing drugs, they should be made legal. The main argument for making drugs illegal in society is because of the harm inflicted on the second party. The use of drugs among people is not a new phenomenon. It has been part of human life since time immemorial. In fact, the Eskimos are the only people lacking tradition because they have been unfortunate to grow anything and wait for other people to bring them alcohol. The use of drug is justified in that it represents human appetite. The question of drug legalization either for medicinal or recreational value refers to whether or not people should be allowed to legally sell, buy, and use drugs for their own personal pleasure or economic gain. Human beings have used psychoactive drugs as back as many centuries ago. Many drugs are produced naturally by plants and easily accessed by people in society where they grow. Therefore, recreational drugs should be legalized in society and stop criminalization of such drugs as is the case in the U.S. If recreational drugs are not legalized, criminalizing these drugs will cause more harm than good since it will create large profitable industry which supply these drugs. In addition, it will increase level of crime in society when people try to finance habits of drug users (Peet, 2004). Psychoactive drugs have been incorporated in social events such as celebrations, religious ceremonies, and rites of passage. When discussing the issue of recreational drugs such as alcohol, it is sensible to talk about the harm associated with these drugs. Drugs can be taken on regular basis with no ill basis but long-term exposure and intake of drugs is harmful. Majority of people die from drug induced causes such as organ damage, heart attack, and even overdose. This is why the United States of America declared war on drugs. In addition, there are some health risks associated with illicit drug usage such as sexually transmitted diseases that arise from poor precautionary judgment. Apart from the self-inflicted harm, there is harm that is caused to others in society such as increased crime rate from users who cannot control their system since drugs consumed inhibits their legitimate decisions. Theft and muggings are commonly associated with addiction and women who are under the influence of drugs would engage in prostitution without their own convictions to do so. Children born in families where parents are drug user’s end up homeless while family resources are depleted (Peet, 2004). The idea of selling and using drugs has both legal and moral issues. On one hand, if the government legalized the use of drugs in society, we can deduce whether application of such drugs is immoral or not. If the law allows an individual to engage or do certain things, it does not mean that the person should do it (Peet, 2004). On the other hand, even if use of drugs is not morally acceptable we can question ourselves whether the use of such drugs is illegal or not. The law has many flaws in that it allows us to do many things that are immoral such as allowing people to engage in using drugs such as cannabis as it is the case in the Netherlands. These are some of the things that people should avoid morally in that we do not tolerate situations where the laws command us on how to lead private lives. This is why the government of Netherland adopted the tolerance policy on drugs that gives people an opportunity either to use or not use drugs such as cannabis with strict regulation. The Dutch government is motivated by the fact that selling of drugs such as cannabis has got unacceptable risk linked with its use. For example, today, almost 80% of the coffee shops in Netherlands sell among other goods such type of cannabis. Legalization of drugs in Netherlands continue to elucidate debate with some people arguing that the introduction of programs such as heroin-assisted treatment back in 1998 has been supported for enhancing and improving the social situation and health of drug addicts. More so, heroin-junkies have been reported to have vanished from the streets of Netherlands and the treatment is improved to standardized level for otherwise untreatable drug addicts. More so, the move has seen the number of drug addicts especially heroin drop by more than 25% since 1983. The Netherlands has over the years adopted policies that legalize the use of drugs stating that legalizing the use of drugs is efficient in that it leads to fewer numbers of addicts and less drug related crimes in the society. While on the other hand, the United States of America has made the use of drugs as illegal because of the dangers that these drugs pose to the society. In Netherlands, drug policy has several aims which include: To reduce harm to drug users To diminish public nuisance by drug addicts and users or the disturbance of public safety and order in the society To deal and combat with trafficking and production of recreational drugs To prevent the use of recreational drugs, rehabilitate and treat recreational drug users (Duncan & Nicholson, 1997). Large scale import, dealing, production and export in drugs are treated as criminal offense in the Netherlands thus those found responsible are prosecuted by the law even if the involved parties do not supply coffee shops with more than accepted amount of drugs. It is important to note that the government is less concerned about how coffee shops get their drugs since it rarely investigates them (Bewley & Fazey, 2003). In the Netherlands, drug policy is controlled by what it differentiates as hard and soft drugs. An argument that is given is that alcohol which is said to be hard drug is legal and that a drug that is considered soft cannot be more dangerous to the society if well regulated and controlled. This argument led to prohibition and eventually ban of alcohol in the U.S in 1920s and that this prohibition established a fertile ground for growth of organized crime syndicates that aimed to smuggle alcohol. In the Netherlands, cannabis still remains a controlled drug and that both production and possession of this drug are treated as misdemeanors which is punishable by heavy fines. To some extent, coffee shops can be said to be illegal but they are flourishing because of drug selling activities that are rarely investigated. Meanwhile a policy of non-enforcement in the Netherlands has led to a scenario whereby many drug addicts and dealers over-rely on the non-enforcement policy thus making it become more common and due to this, judicial courts have ruled in favor of individuals when their cases are prosecuted. The main reason is that courts in the Netherlands are guided by ‘gedoogbeleid’ which means tolerance policy concerning the category of soft drugs. This is argued that they are official principles and guidelines that public prosecutors ought to follow bearing in mind under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted. This non-enforcement policy depicts how the Dutch government has set priorities relating to which offenses and crimes are relevant or important to spend confined or limited resources on. For instance, according to the tolerance policy, if a person is found possessing 5 grams of cannabis for individual use, he or she is not liable for prosecution. Those people who formulated the tolerance policy argued that such policy provides a more consistent way in legal protection pragmatically than in its absence. On the other hand, Netherlands drug policy maintains that there is need for full legalization of drug usage and that policy or laws should be designed to penalize and punish deviant behaviors or unethical behaviors. Due to this non-enforcement law, majority of Dutch population endorse full legalization of drugs. Additionally, prevailing policies in Netherlands concerning drugs states that offenses or crimes are severely punished if a person is found to be in possession of hard drugs containing unacceptable risks. More so, drug possession with the intention of engaging in drug business is also heavily punished (Peet, 2004). The main reason as to why the Netherlands has accepted controlled sales of drugs that are considered soft is to ensure that there is market separation so that cannabis users do not mingle freely with hard drugs when carrying out their activity. The Dutch Drug policy argues that selling of drugs for recreational purposes is not bad because what is important for the user is to avoid harming other people as they exercise their freedom. More so, it stresses that people are morally permitted to sell and use drugs but they must protect against the impact these drugs may have on behaviors of the users on other people. Drug merchants argue that it is not fair for people who are responsible to be morally judged for the actions of the irresponsible people. People who are addicts should not be condemned at any point until their behavior is harming others. In the same manner, it is not right to condemn people who buy recreational drugs but until they infringe on other people. The Netherlands drug policy provided priority to public health perspective or approach in that, it argues that in some instances, it has resulted in some level of non-persecution and tolerance instead of imposing strict law enforcement. For example, the drug information monitoring unit is designed to coordinate testing of pills in specific test places whereby those who take place in the DIMS are not prosecuted (Duncan & Nicholson, 1997). Also, safer or injection rooms in municipalities allows drug users to use drugs in areas that are protected especially established for them by the local authority but it is clear under the Dutch drug policy states drug dealing in and around these rooms is prohibited. In addition, coffee shops are outlets that allow usage of alcohol are portrayed as cafes or bars whereby adults are free to purchase cannabis. In the recent years, the government of Netherlands has moved to reduce the number of coffee shops but the decision whether to reduce or not reduce coffee shops lies with local government. This implies the Netherlands does not outlaw the sell and use of drugs. For instance, the national youth survey in Netherlands in 1999 revealed that people aged 12-18 showed increased in use of cannabis and marijuana than in the U.S. Furthermore, the Netherlands adheres to a policy of separating illicit drugs by arguing that drugs such as cannabis are purchased in coffee hops thus making the Netherlands able to separate soft drugs from hard drugs in the market. This implies that there is separation of the acceptable risks from the unacceptable risks drug addicts and users. It is vital to note that the provisions concerning the use of drugs in the Netherlands are found in the opium act which differentiated between soft and hard drugs. As a result, the government of Netherlands held that having access to drugs, dealing in drugs, selling of drugs and producing of drugs were considered as criminal offense but it clearly states that the use of drugs is not an offense. In addition, the judiciary and police are given option to pursue large scale drug activities and drugs production, which implies that small scale drug businesses and users are not pursued systematically (Duncan & Nocholson, 1997). A global survey conducted by world health organization on legal and illegal drug in Netherlands and other Nations that do not have tough laws and policies on drugs indicated that the U.S reported highest number of marijuana and cocaine users despite its tough anti-drugs laws. For instance, Americans were three times more possibly to have used cocaine or marijuana in their life than in the Netherlands. In Netherlands which has liberal policies on drugs than U.S, less than 2% f people interviewed reported to have used marijuana and cocaine in their lifetime. The United States of America declared war on drugs in 1971 under Nixon administration when drug prohibition policies were implemented. In addition, the government under the leadership of Nixon repealed the policy on comprehensive drug abuse and prevention control Act of 1970 in that it provided that any person found in possession of marijuana or any illicit drug was deemed to be punished. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 focused on restriction of use of some drugs in America. In addition, the U.S government prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of drugs that it considered harmful to the society. The United States of America hold that use of recreational drugs is detrimental to the society and that it must be outlawed. This stand has for a long time caused friction between the United States and Netherlands and other countries that have liberal policies on drugs about the laws and policies for cannabis and other drugs. In Netherlands, selling of Cannabis is considered illegal but coffee shops are not prohibited from selling cannabis if they strictly follow certain criteria such as avoiding advertisement, not selling to persons under the age of 18 years and not selling of hard drugs (Duncan & Nicholson, 1997). Drugs in the United States of America are illegal from cocaine, heroin to marijuana. This is because the use of certain drugs has intoxicating effects that threaten human life and the society in general. The United States has been fighting the issue of use of drugs in that doctors and medical personnel would sell and use illicit drugs to people. This led to fierce fight on drugs as medical doctors and companies had to preserve special logs for sale and distribution of narcotics to people. Initially, most drugs were used recreationally which made it hard for the government to track the type of drug a person was using and how much money they were spending on the drug (Earlywine, 2005). Therefore, the government decided to privatize illicit drug use and impose tax on drug that was being sold. In addition, it is increasingly difficult to regulate recreational drugs like alcohol and tobacco which the U.S government labels as street drugs and thus they carry heavy punishments like fines. Instead of the government providing public education concerning the dreadful effects of drug usage, and providing medical services to the people for those who are addicted to narcotics, the government incarcerates many people due to drug related crimes. Many bills that are against drug addiction and usage have been passed in the U.S because drugs have been declared and made illegal for recreational use. For instance, drug such as marijuana was made illegal in the U.S because it was being increasingly used by poor communities and it was linked to unwanted culture of poor Hispanic. Amphetamines was used by U.S soldiers during the second world war to suppress depression but the black market of the drug came about for its use in sports and this eventually led to amphetamine being criminalized (Bennet, 2011). Since the U.S started to make drugs usage illegal, the number of those people who used cocaine, heroin and other drugs has significantly dropped. This is contrary to what is held by the Netherlands that making drugs illegal does not make any progress in war on drugs. In the U.S, there are penalties that are imposed on simple possession of drugs that are controlled. For instance, it is considered unlawful for an individual to intentionally get access to or posses controlled substance unless such drug or substance was given directly under a valid prescription from a practitioner. Under this law, anybody who goes against this rule is liable to imprisonment of not more than one year (Bewley & Fazey, 2003). The issue of drug addiction and usage seem to be a matter of wealthy nations. The U.S government uses a lot of resources in fighting illicit drugs but at the end, these efforts have little or no effect on trafficking illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin. In fact, at the end, it increases the profits of illicit drug cartels and manufacturers. The United States of America has been spending a lot of money on drug policy agenda but it stands out that it record high number of people using cocaine, alcohol and cannabis despite the adoption of punitive drug laws or policies (Bennet, 2011). There need for the united states of America to create a balanced policy of drug use, treatment, research, law enforcement and reduction in supply which will provide an efficient way in reducing drug abuse and its harm. The adoption of war on drugs slogan in the U.S has not worked instead it has proved to be ineffective as State agents and drug smugglers both participate in illegal usage of illegal drugs. Summarily, In order to effective control and regulate the markets of recreational drugs so as to make sure that they are only accessible to adults, drugs should not be prohibited but rather legalized. When drugs are prohibited and criminalized, sellers of these drugs go underground and therefore it is hard to control and contain them from selling drugs to people. When sellers are underground, it is easy for them to sell drugs to minors than adults. Legalization of recreational drugs will make them available to those who want them at low cost through authorized and licensed merchants. It is not logical to make moral judgment against all recreational drugs just because some individuals are infringing or harming others. If people buy and use drugs without harming others, then it is morally permissible for drugs to be legalized. In this manner, the government will be able to contain the risks associated with drug consumption. References Bennet, B. (2011). The U.S cannot justify its drug war spending. Los Angeles Times. Bewley, T & Fazey, C. (2003). The Mechanics and Dynamics of the UN System for International Drug Control. New York: Kindle Books. Duncan, D. F., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Dutch drug policy: A model for America? Journal of Health and Social Policy, 1997, 8(3), 1-15. Earlywine, M. (2005). Understanding marijuana: a new look at the scientific evidence. Oxford: Oxford University. Peet, P. (2004). Under the influence: The disinformation guide to drugs. New York: The Disinformation Company. Read More