Legalization of Marijuana - Research Paper Example

? Legalization of Marijuana Instead of eradicating drugs from the U.S. and other nations as was promised, the ‘war on drugs’ has instead amplified instances of violence, contributed to the spread of organized crime, crowded the prison system past capacity, consumed enormous amounts of money and still has had almost no impact on the availability of drugs or the numbers of persons who use them. It has been recommended, and in some cases verified, that legalizing or at least decriminalizing less dangerous drugs, such as marijuana, can help decrease violence, significantly reduce the numbers of people imprisoned for drug use, allow more people to remain a member of society and free up money and manpower in the fight against more harmful drugs. The economic feasibility of decriminalizing marijuana has become a much-discussed subject in recent years. The federal government presently spends a lot of capital on law enforcement to combat distributors and producers of drugs. By legalizing drugs this could eradicate much of the profit, bloodshed and corruption of that trade. If legalizing drugs is to have a positive effect on the crime rate, drugs must be made both inexpensive and available. Studies have repetitively suggested that prohibiting marijuana in the U.S. has not shown to be efficient or effective. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “U.S. federal, state and local governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America ‘drug-free.’ Yet heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before. (“England,” 2006) According to a report in The Economist (Case for Legalization, 2001), concerns that a growing drug-using and dependent population would emerge if marijuana was made more available are false. Although the magazine acknowledges that the price of the drug is artificially high, it attributes this to the difficulties involved in circumventing the law. The authors of this report indicate that it is only because of the high cost and the difficulty to obtain it that more individuals have not experimented with it. Instead, they become addicted, either physically or psychologically, to other, often more harmful yet legal substances such as prescription medications or alcohol. To support their argument in favor of legalization even should the numbers of suspected users rise, the Economist article (Case for Legalization, 2001) draws on the theories of John Stuart Mill. Mill’s ideas were founded on the concept that adult citizens should have the right to make their own choices regarding whether or not to participate in activity as long as it does no harm to others. This is a founding theory that has been mostly ignored in decisions made regarding alcohol and tobacco, both of which have proven to directly cause significant harm to innocent others, but has not been ignored regarding Class C substances such as marijuana. However, the arguments that more people would become regular users of the substance are unfounded. In addition to the fallacies of the anti-legalization side regarding increased use, the damage perpetrated on those involved with marijuana far outweighs the benefits achieved by current legislation and yet continues to exist. Poor countries where the drug is produced are quickly being overrun by criminals and thugs, people who make breaking the law on numerous levels. Because production and exportation is considered a criminal activity, the actual criminals are finding success rather than defeat. Individuals within the rich countries who buy the drugs are often otherwise productive members of society. Smoking marijuana, for medical or other reasons, is often their only ‘crime’ yet they face a no tolerance policy that places them in prison, destroys their chances to continue being the productive people they were before and irreparably harms them in many other ways. Under legalization, governments would be able to standardize the quality, regulate the ages permitted to purchase the product and openly provide safety warnings directly to the population. No one is suggesting that legalization should simply make marijuana-smoking a blanket concession. Even the Economist points out any steps taken to legalize should be made slowly in order to avoid some of the pitfalls that have occurred when other historic prohibitions were lifted. One of these steps needs to be introducing a change in the United Nations policy that prevents many countries from moving in this direction (“Case for Legalisation,” 2001). The damage done by the ‘war on drugs’ to underprivileged countries that produce the drugs and poor persons within the wealthy nations who buy the drugs exceeds any benefits achieved by the current bans. These government’s drug laws have not produced the desired results of reducing drug use, instead a great number of innocent people have had their lives ruined. “Many critics argue that the increased toughness of that policy has done more harm than good. Some go so far as to suggest that drugs should simply be legalized” (Caulkins, et al. 2005). If marijuana were legalized, governments would have the ability to regulate quality and, like alcohol, the ages allowed to purchase and the ability to add safety warnings to help educate users. People in this country who only use small amounts of marijuana have routinely been arrested and jailed for mere possession; actions that don’t take drugs off the streets or persuade more people to quit using the them. At the same time, imprisoning those who possess marijuana creates a burden on society as tax dollars must be increased to support these people who are no longer free to secure employment outside prison. The domino effect of this circumstance puts more children and their families onto the welfare roles, contributing to their consequential failure and dependence on society. (“England.” 2006) “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.” (Schaffer, 2006) While much literature exists that provides evidence for both sides of this subject, what seems very clear is that the ‘war on drugs’ remains unsuccessful at its principal goal – that of stopping drug use within the nation’s border. High school students continue to find marijuana extremely easy to come by, numbers regarding the use of marijuana remain stable and there is an increasing trend in the country for reforming the archaic laws. The entire reasoning behind drug war is prohibition, limiting the supply which would in turn limit use. (Males, 2010). The hypothesis holds that by limiting the source so as to make it practically impossible to acquire the demand for these products will inevitably, and somehow magically, disappear. Prohibition strategies that center on stopping the supply lines have shown over the decades to be ineffective. The persistent efforts that have been spent have made bringing marijuana into the country a high risk undertaking. The great risk enables sellers to charge extra for their products based on the high-stakes gamble inherent in the delivery of illegal substances, which makes it an appealing proposition for organized crime. Those who are employed within the drug trade take risks not simply in terms of legal ramifications, but are also pitted against other criminally minded sellers, who are not controlled or regulated by any governing body and consequently have only the criminal element to answer to. The tactics utilized by these elements hardly follow the standard rules of conducting business. Instead, they rely on corruptive techniques and violence. Thanks in large part to the laws constraining the flow of these products organized criminals also have access to virtually unlimited funds which make it possible for them to buy their way through the justice system. “Conventional drug enforcements of imprisoning hundreds of people charged with drug offense only draw more people into the market, replacing those that are only serving temporary sentences.” (Boyum/Kleiman, 2003) The laws have proven unable of keeping marijuana on the other side of the borders and out of the hands of youths. Limiting supplies can never be successful enough to discourage demand for the product. Ironically, the laws enacted to prevent the flow of marijuana and other drugs have instead served to increase their allure among potential users. Though the government has worked very hard to include anti-drug programs within the schools, there remains considerable seduction qualities in drug use simply because they are illegal, putting them in prime position for misuse by those persons who want to explore options beyond the status quo, the counter-culture as it was once referred to. (Eggen, 2005) The most current and most successful campaigns combine alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana only and not other kinds of drugs and focus on a new slogan – “Be Under Your Own Influence” rather than the old “Just Say No” program of the 80s. “Strong fear appeals regarding alcohol and marijuana, we’ve learned over the years, are typically not effective with teens,” (Slater, 2006) This new approach typically seeks to bring to mind examples of known persons who have used alcohol drugs but experience no obvious problems and emphasize the need for collective resistance to substances that alter ones state of mind and the real-life effects. But even in these new types of programs, the harmful status of marijuana continues to be diminished as it is becomes more commonly recognized among both youths and their parents that marijuana poses at most the no more of physical, psychological and social threat as does tobacco or alcohol. In fact the general consensus has swung over to the realization that marijuana is a far less threat than those legal substances. The prohibition methodology adopted by the U.S. is responsible for the enormous increase in the rates of crime and numbers of imprisoned individuals as a result while still having little to no influence upon the actual accessibility and usage rates within the nation’s borders. The statistics concerning the numbers of people currently using drugs at least as a recreational pastime remain steady even as drug arrests and the numbers of people jailed for drug possession continue to increase, indicating larger quantities of marijuana being brought into the country and a greater extent of organization within the crime groups that accomplish this. Instead of attempting to eradicate the demand for these illegal substances, the attempted blockade on supplies not only fails to effectively block trafficking, but it leads to more instances of violence and corruption by making certain the marijuana industry remains a criminal activity. “The enormous cost of this fruitless Drug War not only places an enormous burden upon an already over-stretched budget but also drains money from more effective rehabilitation programs.  It seems irrational and counterproductive to label drug addicts as criminals and throw them into jail with almost no hope of therapy” (Fu, 2006). It is theorized by the economics top minds that there are financial benefits to legalizing marijuana in spite of the concerns levied against this reasonable approach to the issue. By re-examining their attitudes according to available evidence, other nations have demonstrated that a cutback the prohibition efforts can lead to very constructive results in terms of both in the safety and the overall health of its citizens. Concerns in the U.S. over legalization focus around the questions of who, where, what, and how marijuana would be distributed. These are questions that have already been satisfactorily answered in other countries time and time again. United States Prohibition laws prevent the same progressive, informed, reasonable approach ensuring that simple users of marijuana have no chance of living a successful, productive life after being discovered by law enforcement in spite of their past and current level of drug activity or whether or not they had been involved with any other kind of criminal activity. Policies that succeed to decriminalize marijuana, reducing the harshness of punishments, or to lessen its harm, shifting the spotlight back to treatment and education, could also be utilized to help lessen the negative effects of the ‘war on drugs.’ References “Case for Legalization, The.” (July 26, 2001). The Economist. Boyum, David & Kleiman, Mark A.R. “Breaking the Drug-Crime Link.” (Summer 2003). Public Interest. Accessed May 31, 2011 from Caulkins, Jonathan P. Peter, Reuter, Martin Y. Iguchi, James Chiesa (2005). “How Goes the ‘War on Drugs’? An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy” Drug Policy Research Center. Prepared for the Ford Foundation by the Rand Corporation Accessed May 31, 2011 from Drug Policy Alliance. (2006). “England.” Drug Policy Around the World. Accessed May 31, 2011 from Eggen, Dan (May, 2005). “Marijuana Becomes Focus of Drug War” The Washington Post Accessed May 31, 2011 from Fu, Edward. (March 8, 2006). “Should Drugs be Legalized?” Drug Policy News. Drug Policy Alliance. Accessed May 31, 2011 from Males, Mike A. (November 8, 2010) “Marijuana Legalization Has Nothing to Do with Teenagers” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Accessed May 31, 2011 from Schaffer, Clifford A. (2006). “Basic Facts about the War on Drugs.” Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Accessed May 31, 2011 from Slater, Michael. (March 5, 2006). “New Anti-Drug Program Shows ‘Phenomenal’ Success by Focusing on Positives.” Medical News Today. Sussex: MediLexicon International. Accessed May 31, 2011 from Read More