Legalization of Drugs - Essay Example

Legalization of Drugs Legalizing marijuana is a concept that is growing in popularity. Proponents claim that it does society more harm than good to incarcerate people for a fairly harmless substance and is hypocritical for alcohol and tobacco to be legal because these substances are, too, physically addictive and deadly. In addition to marijuana, others, such as Douglas Husak, want to decriminalize all drugs as he explains in Four Points about Drug Legalization, a philosophical commentary on the irrationality of the “war on drugs.” Of course the idea of legalization to some, such as James Wilson, suggests legitimizing the use of dangerous, mind-altering substances which would lead to the increase of addiction therefore crime and the decline of society. Wilson’s comments are based more in real-world terms rather than philosophical but both arguments are similar to the ones held in the medical, legal and philosophical arenas along with those by common citizens at the office, home and social settings. Husak favors decriminalization but not necessarily legalization. He believes users should not be punished for drug use just as alcohol possession was not illegal during the Prohibition era during the 1930’s. It’s a subtle yet important distinction in the national debate. Wilson contends the war on drugs is working. As an example, he points to the use of heroin, which has not increased since the drug war began in earnest during the early 1970’s. This is because it’s essentially the same - people are using it as back then. Young persons are afraid of getting caught and suffering through long prison terms in addition to not being able to afford the very expensive drug. Had heroin been made legal both those impediments to use would not exist. He provides evidence of the more liberal drug laws in Britain where heroin use has been climbing every year since the 1960’s to illustrate his point. On the other hand Husak argues that punishment should be reserved only for those who harm others such as assaults and theft. Imprisoning drug users is not rational. Millions of Americans use drugs but they use alone, and only very seldom does that do any harm except, possibly, to the person using. Yes, if that person commits robbery to support their drug habit, that’s a punishable crime but the actual use should not be. Additionally, the drug war has been employed unfairly, a circumstance that should nullify any law. “Drug prohibition would have vanished long ago had whites been sent to prison for drug offenses at the same rate as blacks. This is one of the features of prohibition that should outrage us all.” (Husak, 2003). Heroin is a debilitating drug, which, according to Wilson, serves the public good to be kept illegal. However, crack cocaine is worse and the thought of it being legalized is preposterous. At least when people are using Heroin, as Wilson says they are “helpless but at least harmless.” When using cocaine, people tend to become violent with the only goal of obtaining and using more, becoming binge users at the expense of their job and family. These addicts are impulsive, irritable, hyperactive, violent and uninhibited making them a constant danger to society. Therefore the user should be taken out of society. Women use crack cocaine more than men and cannot stop when they become pregnant which has very harmful effects for the innocent child. These are not isolated incidents, it is estimated that up to 50,000 babies are born every year addicted to cocaine in New York City alone. The reason people use crack more than heroin is the price. If we legalize drugs the price will drop for all varieties. We will see other drugs rise to the usage level of crack and beyond. Crack cocaine is a precursor, a lesson for future drug policies. (Wilson, 1990). Husak counters that one should not assume decriminalization will act to decrease the price of drugs. Again, the difference in legalization and decriminalization matters when discussing the method society deals with drug sales, use and abuse. Decriminalizing drugs does not necessarily have an impact on the price. If the sales remain illegal the amount will not drop due to the same rick factor. Even if drug sales were legal, local, state and federal taxes could make drugs as expensive as authorities wanted them to be. A portion of the tax revenue could fund rehabilitation facilities which would further reduce the number of users. Wilson and others who oppose ending the war on drugs, by whatever method, often use statistics to strengthen their position. Husak takes a novel yet reasonable approach to statistics by comparing trends of alcohol and tobacco use with illegal drugs over a 30 year period. He found the rates of illegal drug use in the U.S. hit 14 percent in the late 1970’s then declined to about five percent in the early 1990’s and has increased steadily though slightly since then. Alcohol and tobacco use followed a similar up, down then back up trend during those years which proves that punitive measures do nothing to increase or decrease illegal drug use. What does increase drug use is called the “forbidden fruit” syndrome. Young persons are naturally curious particularly about what is supposed to be societal taboos such as sex and drugs. They know adults try to scare them away from these potentially harmful behaviors and have learned some of what they were told about marijuana, for example, was exaggerated. Taking away the mystery of drugs, if it has any effect, will only act to reduce consumption. “Might the use of some illicit drugs actually decrease because they are no longer forbidden? If we change the law, the appeal of illicit drugs will be changed as well. To what extent? No one knows.” (Husak, 2003). Both Wilson and Husak agree rehabilitation and education will yield positive results to reduce drug use but diverge on the method. Rather than offering rehabilitation facilities for all who need it on a voluntary basis, Wilson would make it compulsory following a positive drug test result conducted by employers, schools, police, etc. He argues that rehab failure rates are high, therefore, unless drug addicts are made to stay for a prescribed period of time, they will likely be using again. A problem with this idea, other than the civil liberty implications, is that society has shown conclusively it is more willing to build prisons than drug rehabilitation facilities. Regarding education, Wilson has few ideas other than telling students drugs, both legal and illegal, are bad for you. He is convinced that punitive measures are the only way to convince people not to use drugs. Husak uses a pizza example to better illustrate his viewpoint. Suppose selling or eating pizza was illegal due to the fact it is harmful to consume. Pizza is loaded with fat and calories which causes health problems such as obesity, a healthcare concern that costs a billion per year. “If we lacked a good reason to attack the problem of obesity by punishing pizza eaters in the first place, the effects of repeal on pizza consumption would not provide such a reason. And so with drugs.” Wilson’s idea is essentially to “double-down” on the enforcement and incarceration otherwise known as the war on drugs. He says if he is wrong then we will “needlessly have incurred heavy costs in law enforcement and some forms of criminality” (Wilson, 1990) and he is absolutely right as the past 40 year failed war on drugs policy has proved. Wilson was influential in President Nixon’s national policy decision to prosecute drug users. His argument back in the 1970’s is the same today. It’s possible he is trying to salvage his legacy but the same old arguments have long since lost their credibility. Husak may be wrong but his methodology has yet to be tried, at least in this country. Decriminalization may not reduce the number of users but it will not likely increase the number either. What it will do is reduce the number of American citizens in jail for crimes that do no harm to others. Current drug laws are a greater cause of harm than drug use. Husak offers the reasonable approach that draws on the lessons of the past two generations while Wilson would have us repeat the same mistakes and expect different results. Works Cited Husak, Douglas. “Four Points about Drug Legalization.” EBSCO Publishing (2003). Web. June 3, 2012 Wilson, James Q. “Against the Legalization of Drugs.” Commentary, 89:2 p.21 American Jewish Committee (February, 1990) Web. June 3, 2012 Read More