Legalization Of Drugs: Measures Against Drug Trafficking - Essay Example

Legalization Of Drugs: Measures Against Drug Trafficking Introduction In his essay “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate” Dan Gardner discusses the problem of strict repressive measures against drug trafficking, and argues that these measures lead to escalation of drug related problems. His conclusion is: “Higher enforcement is associated with higher homicide” (Gardner 268). He suggests that other measures should be taken in this sphere. I agree with his opinion concerning strict prohibitionist policy, but I think legalization of drugs is not an option due to many reasons, which are discussed in this paper. In my opinion, the best possible decision is harm reduction. Drugs have been known to people for thousands of years. They were consumed by people of different cultures, with different purposes: during religious ceremonies, in order to expand consciousness, or ease pain and discomfort. There is evidence, that even in ancient times people knew how to use psychoactive chemical substances, such as alcohol and plants, consumption of which affects mind. Until the early 20th century there had been almost no restrictions on production and consumption of drugs. Sometimes, attempts were made to reduce or ban the use of certain substances, but they were short and usually unsuccessful. At present, the volume of drug use is huge, and most civilized countries have adopted various measures to combat this social evil. The policy of most countries aimed at combating drugs includes prohibitive measures against drug trafficking. However, most civilized countries more are starting to rethink the traditional drug policy. A lot of significantly different groups of people, from drug addicts to leading political figures, are now questioning the old and commonly held view that any non-medical use of drugs should be prohibited. There are different views on this issue: a. Decriminalization. Free sale of certain drugs and some aspects of drug trafficking, such as their use, should be allowed. b. Legitimate prescriptions for drugs. Drugs should be given by doctors for legitimate reasons. c. Legalization. All or almost all drugs should be sold more or less freely, like alcohol. Legalization Legalization of drugs suggests that their production, quality and sale are regulated in the same way as manufacture and sale of any other consumer product. At present, the idea of ​​legalizing drugs is obscured by various myths. Thus, one of the most widespread myths is the myth of the “legalization” of drugs in Holland. In fact, the situation in Netherlands is not much different from situation in other countries of the world: trade of hard drugs is prohibited and punishable by imprisonment; possession and personal use of almost any kind of drug leads to criminal liability. At the end of 1995 the Netherlands decriminalized possession and sale of cannabis weighing 30 grams; its sale is carried out in specially designated areas. Such policy is sometimes called decriminalization of consumption, but this is not “legalization” of drugs. According to Gardner, the drug market—as any other market—is a self-correcting mechanism, and prohibition of drugs will just increase the demand. This is true, but I don’t think the “legalization” in this respect is more effective than prohibition. A logical conclusion of the statement: “legalization will eliminate the black market” will be “legalization of rape will eliminate violence against women”. Why not? They are both crimes. Besides, such dangerous things as drugs can’t be regulated in an open legal market: Depending on what one meant by “legalization,” it might well happen that the market for existing recreational drugs, including cocaine and heroin, would collapse as better and more powerful euphorics, stimulants, anorexics, and narcotics were brought to market, each with its own complement of unforeseeable behavioral side effects (Polsby 172). Extensive debate concerning the contemporary politics in relation to drugs is often called “the debate on legalization,” which in many respects is erroneous. Rather, it should be called a debate on regulation, because in the question is not so much about the final choice between prohibition and legalization, but the degree of regulation of drugs, which are illegal today. Excessive sharpening of the debate on these two extremes distracts attention from the serious issues that need to be resolved now. I am against “legalization” due to several reasons, including the following: Individuals who do not use drugs, but live in homes where they are used, can be murdered with a probability 11 times higher than those who live in drug-free homes. For a woman, drug abuse in the family increases the likelihood that she can be murdered by her close relatives in 28 times. A survey of child care institutions in several states found that substance abuse is one of the two main problems in 81% of families in which child abuse took place. According to a recent survey, substance abuse was documented in at least half of all cases of child abuse or maltreatment. According to the National Institute of Justice, more than half of all crimes the US is committed by persons under the influence of drugs. Most importantly, the majority of these crimes is the result of drugs – and not due to the fact that drugs are illegal. Proponents of legalizing drugs do not have any evidence that could confirm their claim that drug use is not associated with crime and violence. To conclude, I would like to quote the following: One of the difficulties of life is getting through adolescence; it is part of the maturing process. You are met with setbacks. You are met with failures. You are met with obstacles. And you have to work through that. Marijuana has the effect, when used by young people, of not letting them confront those problems (Lungren 180). Prohibition The above mentioned facts state that legalization will be a real disaster. But strict prohibitionist policy is also harmful (in this case Dan Gardner’s argument is true). During the period of President Ronald Reagan, the new term “war on drugs” was coined, which gave the aggressive militaristic tone to prohibitionism. It was decided to apply—in relation to illegal drugs—the “approach of zero tolerance.” The Minister of Justice in the Reagan administration proposed, for example, to test all people for drug use: across the country, all workers and employees, and if the test is positive, to dismiss the offender. Such measures were not taken, but the Americans are still famous for relentless brutality in the fight against drugs. They used a variety of methods – starting from prevention programs in schools, when the police convinced children not to use drugs and taught them how to say “No”, and ending with the real military operations and bombings, as, for example, in Columbia, funded by the United States and held under the guise of aid and fight against drug cartels. Despite such tough and uncompromising action in the fight against drugs, over the years it became clear that such policy not only failed to bring the desired results, but on the contrary, produced a large number of negative effects: it promoted the development and strengthening of one of the largest illegal markets, and, consequently, the criminal groups involved in it. In addition to these global economic and political consequences, repressions promote marginalization, social and legal vulnerability of drug users, which leads to a high level of criminalization, social disorder, epidemics of infectious diseases, drug overdoses and many other problems. Harm Reduction Currently, most countries review their approach and refuse from repressive measures against drug users in favor of less repressive methods, known as “decriminalization”, that is absence of persecution of people who use drugs or store drugs for personal use. Also, some countries are expanding the medical use of psychoactive substances such as methadone treatment and use of marijuana for medical purposes. “Harm reduction” is a term which has become a generally accepted notion that characterizes specific medical, social and political approach to solving the problem of substance abuse, both legal and illegal. The approach is based on a pragmatic recognition that the use of certain drugs takes place in every culture and social structure, and, despite years of efforts, so far any country, city or community is not able to completely eradicate drug use. Harm reduction approach does not diminish the importance of trying to help a person to completely give up drugs, but it admits and acknowledges the fact, that for many drug users this goal may take a very long time, during which there is a very high risk of transmission of viruses, especially HIV and hepatitis, as well as development of other diseases. Proponents of harm reduction believe that is why cooperation with drug users should not be limited to full cessation, although this goal is a full-fledged goal of harm reduction, but should focus on other issues related to drugs and their minimization. Harm reduction is probably not a model of drug policy, but a certain approach to address the emerging issues related to drugs, which can be applied to any model, since none of these models leads to elimination of all problems related to drugs. The main direction of this approach is identification of specific problems and formulation of concrete and pragmatic goals, i.e. realistically attainable, short-term goals. In the case of prohibitionism such problem will be, for example, criminalization of drug users and spread of infectious disease epidemics. In the case of legalization, harm reduction efforts would be directed to the problems of drug dependence and abuse of certain substances. In his book Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market Thomas Szasz wrote the following: Each year, tens of thousands of people are injured and killed as a result of accidents associated with the use of [drugs]. Why do we not speak of “ski abuse” or a “chain saw problem”? Because we expect people who use such equipment to familiarize themselves with their use, and avoid injuring themselves or others (Szasz 15). He is absolutely right. This is what should be done: teaching people and helping them to know the enemy. In contrast to the idealistic policies that put in front the unattainable goals, such as “drug-free world,” “the thirtieth century without drugs,” “legalization of all drugs”, etc. the “harm reduction” approach pays attention to what is achievable here and now. The work to reduce harm may be intended to limit or reduce both the nature and extent of the harmful effects of drug use in four areas: medical, social, economic and legal. The medical field requires reduction of the spread of viral and bacterial infections, overdose, problems with veins, as well as general weakening of the immune system. The social sector faces the problems of cost of wide availability of illicit drugs, as well as the impossibility of social adjustment for drug users – the problem with work, school, and family. The issues related to the incapacity of a large part of young population and the necessary costs of treating people with HIV are in the economic sphere. The legal area includes the need to confront violation of civil rights of people who use drugs, and abandoning the prosecution. References Gardner, D. “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Writing for Canadian Students with Readings, 6/E. Ed. Kay L. Stewart, Roger Davis, Chris J. Bullock, Marian E. Allen. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, 2008. 266-268. Print. Lungren, D. “Legalization Would Be a Mistake.” After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century. Ed. Timothy Lynch Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2000. 179-185. Print. Polsby, D. “Legalization Is the Prudent Thing to Do.” After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century. Ed. Timothy Lynch Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2000. 171-179. Print. Szasz, T. Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992. Print. Read More