Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized - Research Paper Example

Should Illegal Drugs be Legalised? How should Drugs be Managed i.e. as a Criminal, Medical or Social Issue? There has been intense hostile debate on the question whether illegal drugs should be legalised since long. However, a look into the relevant scholarly works and empirical evidence proves that legalising illegal drugs will not considerably worsen the social order as many people opposing the legalisation lament. Instead, an analysis of the situation proves that there are many obvious benefits associated with the legalisation, the most important advantage being medical use. After analysing the positive aspects, this work intends to analyse the negative aspects of legalisation, as claimed by the opponents. Moreover, the work will discuss why it is necessary to handle drugs as a social and medical issue but not a criminal issue. In fact, the medical benefits of legalising drugs are plenty. For example, Harding (2013) points out that marijuana and its ingredients are highly effective in handling issues like epilepsy, alcoholism, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In addition, Harding (2013) identifies marijuana and its derivatives as useful in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. Similarly, Walsh et al. (2013) claims that marijuana is highly effective in dealing with nausea and appetite loss linked to chemotherapy, and Cancer Council NSW (2001) reports that many other health problems like irritable bowel syndrome, glaucoma, abnormal heart rhythm, and sleep apnea can be treated using marijuana. Similarly, people like Akers (1992) point out that many of the so-called illegal drugs in the modern society, including opium, coca, cannabis, mescaline, and psilocybin have medical history dating back to thousands of years, and in those years, no nation went anarchic for not criminalising drug use. Moreover, in the opinion of Wisotsky (1992), psychedelics like psilocybin and LSD have potential medical use as they are capable of treating a wide variety of otherwise difficult to treat mental disorders like post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism and chronic depression. At present, the situation is that due to the prohibition, a large number of people in the world find it difficult to have access to controlled medication like opiate pain relievers. A Transnational Institute Report (2008, pp. 8) points out: “According to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), there is now an unmet demand in opiates. Ironically, the current drug control regulations hamper access to controlled opiate medications for therapeutic use. Many patients are unable to access morphine, methadone or an equivalent opioid. Global medical morphine consumption would rise five times if countries would make morphine available at the level of the calculated need, according to a recent WHO estimate.” Admittedly, one reaches the conclusion that simply criminalising drug use and ignoring the potential medical uses of these drugs only has a negative consequence for the health of people. In addition, as a result of this, many people around the world find it difficult to get access to the necessary medication they need. In fact, most researches have started acknowledging drug addiction as a medical problem and not a legal problem, at least partially. Another important benefit of legalising drugs is the dramatic decline in crime. According to reports, nearly 50% of the property crimes in the UK are aimed at raising money to use drugs (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, n. d). Some other issues identified by the Foundation as linked to the criminalisation of drugs are street crimes, mass incarceration, organised crimes, money laundering, corruption, and violent crimes (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, n. d). Evidently, the price of illegal drugs is decided by their illegality. In other words, it is a demand-led market. That means legalising drugs will have a direct impact on the number of people who reach jails every year. When drugs are legalised, it is possible to bring down the price of drugs and impose rules and regulations regarding the legally allowed age to use drugs. This view is supported by the finding that most drug offenders are non-violent (Beck & Harrison 2001). Evidently, a considerable proportion of people in the society possess the distorted view that drug use is directly linked to increased crime, but the study shows that drug users are no more violent than the general population. Instead, it is the illegality of the drug use and the consequent increase in its price which result in many crimes. That means, it is possible to bring down crimes like robbery and murders by removing the prohibition on drugs (Werb et al. 2010). Another important negative aspect of criminalising drug use is the social stigma. For example, Mascharka (2000) shows that people who are caught for drug use face stigma in the society, and this negatively affects their education and employability. Even though these people commit no crimes against the society, they are considered criminals and denied a decent living and medication. Many of these people are sent behind bars and denied proper medical intervention which is very necessary for recovery (Pettit & Western 2004). In order to substantiate the claim that drug addiction requires medical intervention and not legal intervention, it is necessary to analyse the changing perspectives and the latest trend to view it as a disease instead of a crime. People like Peele (1989) point out that alcoholism and drug addiction are to be considered as an illness or a disease, not a crime. In addition, Conrad (2000) reports a Pew Research Centre poll in the U. S., which found that more than half of the respondents identify drug addiction as a disease. This popular concept is further strengthened by the fact that most of the time, the ones who are arrested and put in jails for drug abuse fail to get rid of the addiction despite prolonged imprisonment. However, the ones who get medical intervention manage to come out of the addiction and lead a much better life than the former. Another benefit of this change in the concept, viewing drug addiction as a disease instead of a crime, is related to social stigma. In the opinion of Parsons (1951), by labelling the drug users “sick”, it is possible to change their role in the society considerably. That means the ones who were sent to jails for drug abuse will now be able to get proper medical treatment for the same, and the stigma of being termed as a criminal is removed. A look into the work of Fox (1989) proves that many legal problems of the past, including child abuse, sexual addiction, gambling, and suicide have all become medical problems in these years. Thus, one reaches the insight that it is high time to accept the changes and handle issue in an appropriate manner, that is, legalising drugs and handling drug addiction as a disease. In fact, the prohibition laws only help drug traffickers in the form of increased demand and profits. For example, in the U.S., nearly 800,000 people were arrested and an amount of $ 7 billion was spent on marijuana prohibition in the year 2005. Still, a survey reveals that nearly 85% of the high school students find it easy to get access to marijuana when they want (“Trends in Availability of Drugs”, n. d). From this, it becomes evident that criminalising drug use or the fight against drug in a legal way does not offer any useful solution. Instead, it can only lead to increased number of imprisonment and extra expenditure. In order to substantiate this claim, it is necessary to analyse the situation in countries like Netherlands, Holland, and Columbia, which adopt a soft approach to drugs. In fact, Netherlands was the third highest user of cocaine and cannabis in 1998. However, when the nation adopted a soft approach towards drug use, there was a dramatic decline in the number of users. According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Stevenson 2009), at present Netherlands have the lowest number of drug users. In fact, Netherlands allow possession of marijuana and allows coffee shops to sell the same. In addition, a look into the list of countries with high rates of drug addiction as prepared by whichcountry.co proves that none of these nations which do not criminalise drug use has high rates of drug addiction. In the list, Iran comes first with 14.32% and United Kingdom comes second in the list with 13.65%. Thereafter, France, Slovakia, Russia, Afghanistan, Canada, United States, Brazil and Mexico come in sequence (Which Country 2014). It becomes evident from the analysis that the reason behind increased crimes is not legalising drugs. Instead, making drugs illegal gives birth to problems like corruption. To illustrate, many scholars claim that such a prohibition leads to police corruption (International Council on Human Rights Policy 2009; Drug Policy Alliance 2011; Allchin 2010). In addition, there is the problem that many youngsters and children get lured into drug trafficking because of the glamour, adventure, and money involved. While some children join such groups for easy money (Kane 1992), some others are attracted because of the glamour associated with such works (Wink 1998). Furthermore, it is necessary to remember at this juncture that many studies have revealed the close link between drug trafficking and terrorism because of the big money involved. Terrorist organisations need money and they engage in drug trafficking as the easiest and the most profitable way of making money. Firstly, the prohibition of drugs helps traffickers and terrorist organisations with lots of money by creating a lucrative black market. It is useful at this point to see what Michael Levine, a federal narcotics officer, says about drug peddlers: “I learnt that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers. They found U.S. interdiction efforts laughable. The only U. S. action they feared was an effective demand reduction programme” (Lynch 2000, pp. 92). In the opinion of Costa (2007), if drugs are legalised, those who engage in this business will be able to take legal steps in case of disputes, and this will result in a reduction in murders and robberies. In fact, this claim is supported by the fact that in 1933, when the alcohol prohibition was removed in the U.S, there was a sudden fall in the number of such crimes. As already seen in the analysis, the countries where drug is legalised exhibit less drug-induced crimes than other nations. In fact, legalising drugs and licensing the sellers benefit the society in a number of ways. The most important point is that this will ensure that drugs are sold only to adults. In addition, when the sellers are open and identifiable, it is easy to notice if they sell drugs to minors, which is very difficult in case of anonymity (Lynch 2000). Thus, it becomes evident that legalising drugs has a number of benefits. However, it is not wise to turn a blind eye towards the arguments against the legalisation of drugs. Firstly, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (n. d) points out that criminalisation of drugs stops many people from trying them. In a study, nearly a third of the respondents who do not use drugs reported illegality of the action as the reason behind the abstinence and nearly one-fifth of the participants who gave up drugs provided the same reason. Based on this, the Bureau argues that prohibition is useful. Similarly, the study by Kerlikowske (n. d) shows that drug use is price-sensitive. The study proved that cigarette use can be reduced by increasing the price of cigarettes. Admittedly, one of the most important arguments put forward by the opponents of decriminalisation of drugs is the negative effects of drugs on health. According to Pearson (2004), the problems associated with the use of marijuana are memory loss, distorted perceptions, deterioration of motor skills and muscle power, increased heart rate, anxiety and so on. In addition, there is the shocking revelation that the chances of heart attack increase by 20% on smoking marijuana (Pearson 2004). Yet another claim is that drugs are addictive. As Drug Free Australia (n. d) claims, addiction is compulsive in nature. Once smitten, a person has no way other than using the drug. That means this will have a negative impact on individual freedom and decision making. Another major allegation against the legalisation of drugs comes from UNDCP (1995) which claims that drug addiction of a person affects not only their own life but also the lives of many others including their friends, family and relatives. To illustrate, drug addiction has a role in not allowing a person to improve their social situation. Thus, when one person in a family is addicted, the whole family, especially dependent children, is forced to live in poverty. In addition, as the addict is likely to lose motor and cognitive abilities, the person becomes dependent on friends and relatives, thus causing social issues. Therefore, using drugs cannot be considered as a matter of individual decision and freedom because this has an impact on the whole society. From the analysis, it becomes evident that it is high time to change the way drug is dealt with. Admittedly, this is a problem where legal, medical and social aspects often overlap each other. However, there are certain points which become obvious from the analysis. Firstly, the present approach of war on drugs has miserably failed in achieving any notable changes. Instead, it has led to issues like better money and motivation for traffickers and terrorist organisations, increased corruption in law and order, and lack of proper supply of many essential drugs like opiate pain relievers for the needy around the world. Secondly, it has become evident from the study that drug use and consequent drug-induced crimes do not considerably increase in the nations which adopt a soft approach towards drugs. Instead, these countries show a decline in the same when the aura of mystery surrounding drugs is removed. Thirdly, there are arguments both for and against the health benefits of drugs like marijuana, and it is for governments to set prejudices aside and conduct new researches into their medical uses and negative effects. Finally, drug addiction is not a subject to be considered legally. Instead, it is a matter that deserves medical and social intervention. This is so because as the analysis reveals, scholars have already accepted addiction as a sickness or illness, and they have proved that medical intervention can improve the situation. In addition, as the study reveals, the reasons that encourage people to turn to drugs are often social in nature. Some adopt drugs to relieve tension, some for glamour and social acceptance, some for easy money and so on. In all these cases, the underlying reasons are social, and only social interventions aimed at the basic reasons can solve the problem. In total, in a simple analogy, not legalising drugs despite all the obvious benefits is like not allowing vehicles on roads as there is the possibility of someone crossing the road and getting injured. The reasons behind drug abuse and addiction are often social in nature. Therefore, criminalising drugs is like suppressing the symptoms of a disease instead of treating the basic causes of the disease. In addition, the criminalisation of drugs leads to issues like insufficient access to essential drugs for many people and increased demand and profit for drug traffickers. To sum up, the solution is to legalise drugs and introduce medical and social interventions to deal with the problems. References Akers, R 1992, Drugs, alcohol, and society: social structure, process, and policy, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA. Allchin, J 2010, Is Drug Policy a Human Rights Abuser? Democratic Voice of Burma, Available from: < http://www.dvb.no/analysis/is-drug-policy-a-human-rights-abuser/8637>. [28 March 2014]. Beck, AJ & Harrison, PM 2001, Prisoners in 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U. S Department of Justice, Available from: < http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf>. [28 March 2014]. Cancer Council NSW n. d., Medical Use of Cannabis- Position Statement, Cancer Council NSW, Available from: . [28 March 2014]. Conrad, P 2000, Handbook of Medical Sociology, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Costa, AM 2007, “Cannabis…call it anything but soft”, The Independent (UK) 25 March, p. 6 Drug Free Australia n. d, Arguments for Prohibition. Available from: . [28 March 2014]. Drug Policy Alliance 2011, We Fabricated Drug Charges against Innocent People to Meet Arrest Quotas, Former Detective Testifies, Available from < http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/we-fabricated-drug-charges-against-innocent-people-meet-arrest-quotas-former-detective-test>. [28 March 2014]. Fox, R 1989, The sociology of medicine: A participant observer’s view, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Harding, A 2013, Medical Marijuana, WebMD, Available from: . [28 March 2014]. International Council on Human Rights Policy 2009, Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection, Transparency International, Available from: < http://archive.transparency.org/publications/publications/other/ichrp_ti_report>. [28 March 2014]. Kane, JP 1996, Should drugs be legalized? Taking Sides, Dushkin Publishing Group, Guilford, CT. Kerlikowske, G n. d, Why Marijuana Legalisation would Compromise Public Health and Public Safety? Office of National Drug Control Policy, Available from: < http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp>. [28 March 2014]. List of Top Ten Countries with Most Drug Use in the World, 2014. Available from: . [28 March 2014]. Lynch, T 2000, After prohibition: An adult approach to drug policies in the 21st century, Cato Institute, New York. Mascharka, C 2000, “Mandatory minimum sentences: exemplifying the law of unintended consequences”, Florida State University Law Review, vol. 28, pp. 935. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2001, Does Prohibition Deter Cannabis Use. Available from: < http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/mr_cjb58.pdf>. [28 March 2014]. Parsons, T 1951, The social system, Free Press, New York. Pearson, H 2004, “Science and the war on drugs: A hard habit to break”, Nature, doi:10.1038/430394a, Available from < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6998/full/430394a.html>. [28 March 2014]. Peele, S 1989, The diseasing of America: addiction treatment out of control, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Pettit, W & Western B 2004, “Mass imprisonment and the life course: race, and class inequality in U. S incarceration”, American Sociological Review, vol. 69, pp. 151. Stevenson, R 2009, “Dutch among lowest cannabis users in Europe-Report”, Reuters. 5 November. Available from < http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/05/idUSL5730185>. {28 March 2014]. Transform Drug Policy Foundation, n. d. Count the Costs: 50 Years of the War on Drugs. Available from: . [28 March 2014]. Transnational Institute 2008, Rewriting History: A Response to the 2008 World Drug Report, Available from < http://www.ungassondrugs.org/images/stories/brief26.pdf>. [28 March 2014]. Trends in Availability of Drugs as Perceived by Twelfth Graders. Available from: . [28 March 2014]. UNDCP 1995, The Social Impact of Drug Abuse, United Nations International Drug Control Programme, Available from . [28 March 2014]. Walsh, Z, Callaway, R, Belle-Isle, L, Capler, R, Kay, R, Lucas, P & Holtzman, S. 2013. “Cannabis for therapeutic purposes: Patient characteristics, access, and reasons for use”, International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 24, issue 6, pp. 511-516. Werb, D, Rowell, G, Guyatt, G, Kerr, T, Montaner, J & Wood, E 2010. Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review, International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Available from: http://www.icsdp.org/docs/ICSDP-1%20-%20FINAL.pdf>. [28 March 2014]. Wink, W 1998, Illegal drugs should be legalised: current controversies, Greenhaven Press, San Diego, CA. Wisotsky, S 1992, A society of suspects: the war on drugs and civil liberties. Policy Analysis No. 180, CATO Institute, Washington. Read More