Arguments for and against drug prohibition: Difference between revisions

The prohibition of drugs is a subject of considerable controversy. The following is a presentation of arguments for and against drug prohibition.

Arguments for prohibition

Health

A common reason given for banning drug use is that drug use is unhealthy, with possible effects ranging from lowered intelligence to insanity to death by overdose, or little or no health effects at all. Some illegal drugs are statistically more dangerous than other unhealthy things. Unlike alcohol, many illegal drugs were once legal until their health problems and addictive properties were realized.

Drug prohibition as a solution to perceived problems of society

Some proponents of drug prohibition, such as members of the Temperance movement, support drug prohibition on the basis that many of the perceived problems or flaws of society are caused by the use of drugs or drug addiction. As to maintain consistency with this stance, these proponents often call for prohibition of alcohol. Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts and drug pushers (attracted by profits) if drugs are legalized. They believe addicts are more likely to commit more crimes because their minds are altered (some drugs may cause harmful behaviour), much as drunk criminals do sometimes.

Commercial exploitation of drug addiction

Some people, especially those who might otherwise support drug legalization, are against it because of the impact upon society of the commercial exploitation of the addictive potential of drugs. The basic concept is that tobacco and alcohol are extremely popular even though they are relatively more dangerous than many illegal drugs and are subjectively less pleasurable. This, critics say, is attributable to the large marketing campaigns of tobacco and alcohol companies. If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasurable, then chances are even more people would become addicted. This genre of critics is pessimistic that a system could ever be created whereby drugs could be legalized but not be commercially exploited. They often call for reinstated prohibition of alcohol. One factor critics point to is the tremendous lobbying power of alcohol and tobacco companies, as well as the large areas of commerce that are already related to illegal drugs, such as t-shirts about drugs, or songs about drugs. These critics also dismiss the idea that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper, pointing to the fact that most brands of alcohol are more expensive than most illegal drugs for an equivalent level of inebriation (this might be true in the USA, UK, Scandinavian, Muslim and some other countries, but is not true in many other, most, countries; also, prescription drugs, as opioids, are much cheaper, when legally bought, than similar illegal drugs). Many of these critics feel that those involved in the production of certain currently legal drugs such as tobacco and prescription opioids are already profiting off of the addiction of their users. This criticism is directed not only toward the commercial exploitation of physiological addiction, but also of psychological addiction, which in addition to drug use can occur in relation to many types of behavior, for example gambling, overeating and economic consumption.

Arguments against prohibition

Arguments against drug prohibition tend to fall into one of these categories:

Philosophic Arguments

Personal freedom: What persons do in their residences, according to some, should not be regulated by the government. Many argue that persons should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, as long as they do not harm others. The argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and as such the government has no right to prohibit it or punish drug consumers, much like the government does not forbid overeating, which causes significantly more deaths per year. This can be equated with the quest for freedom of thought.

Consistency: It has been shown that ending prohibition reduces the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as the Netherlands. Since alcohol prohibition ended and the War on Drugs began, there has been much debate over the issue of consistency among legislators with regard to drug prohibition. Many anti-prohibition activists like to bring up the dangers of alcohol which can be severe when compared to drugs. In addition to anecdotal evidence, they cite statistics to show more deaths caused by drunk driving than by drivers under the influence of marijuana, more assaults instigated by drunks than by smokers, and more property damage. Some activists argue that it is inconsistent that alcohol is legal for those over 21 in the United States, while marijuana is absolutely illegal. This discrepancy is explained by the longer history of alcohol in Western society, which has caused it to be more accepted than marijuana.

Crime/terrorism

Critics of drug prohibition often cite the fact that the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies to support the argument that legalization of drugs could have similar effects. Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake" (Riga 53). When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough, even in the US, that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.[1]

Drug money is also known as a major source of income for terrorist organizations, as President George W. Bush has mentioned. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terror. While politicians blame drug users for financing terrorists, no clear evidence of this link has been provided.

Proven Ineffectiveness

The "war on drugs" started in a $350 million budget in 1971 and is currently (in 2006) a $20 billion campaign. After more than 30 years in practice the war on drugs is having little or no effect on the trafficking of drugs, except to make them more expensive. Since the use of all major recreational drugs except opiates has increased since the passing of the laws which illegalized them, the increase in cost cannot be said to discourage the use of the drugs.

Romanticizing the forbidden fruit

The war on drugs is counterproductive to the goal of discouraging drug use. The primary mechanism for this is reverse psychology. Forbidden things become fodder for rebellion, and illegal drugs have been popularized by this perception. In addition there is a great disparity of The United States' ability to enforce drug laws among those above and below the age of 18, and this causes highschool aged children to become the conduit through which drugs are distributed, contravening our "protect the children" intentions. This argument is often summed up as "Adam and Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit because they were hungry, but because it was forbidden."

Criminalization increases profits for drug dealers

Legalization would reduce the profits of drug dealing. The illegal drug business is very profitable since the price of a product increases when it is made illegal. "Whenever there is a great demand for a product and (the) government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand" (Official United States Libertarian Party Platform).

Yearly drug trafficking earnings average to about 60 billion dollars and range as high as 100 billion dollars a year (Duke and Gross 33). Marijuana is the largest cash crop in ten states and the second largest cash crop in the U.S., after corn.

"Revenues from drug trafficking in Miami, FL., are greater than those from tourism, exports, health care, and all other legitimate businesses combined" (Wink 108). The U.S. illegal drug market is one-eighth of the total world market, making it the largest illegal drug market in the world (Rodriguez).

Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Policy mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our streets" (qtd. in Boaz). Additionally, drug dealers show off expensive jewelry and clothing to young kids (Duke and Gross 33). Some of these kids are interested in making fast money instead of working legitimate jobs (Kane 157). Drug legalization would remove the "glamorous Al Capone-type traffickers who are role-models for the young" (Wink 111).

Diverted resources increase non drug related crimes

The War on Drugs is extremely costly to such societies that outlaw drugs in terms of taxpayer money, lives, productivity, the inability of law enforcement to pursue mala in se crimes, and social inequality. Some proponents of legalization say that the financial and social costs of drug law enforcement far exceed the damages that the drugs themselves cause. For instance, in 1999 close to 60,000 prisoners (3.3% of the total incarcerated population) convicted of violating marijuana laws were behind bars at a cost to taxpayers of some $1.2 billion per year. In 1980, the total jail and prison population was 540,000, about one-quarter the size it is today. Drug offenders accounted for 6% of all prisoners. Today drug offenders account for nearly 25%.

Illegal drugs are far less toxic than legal drugs

Although there hasn't been a single substantiated case in medical history for the last 100 years of a marijuana overdose(death), two other legal drugs have caused more than half a million deaths a year in the U.S.A alone: 480,000 deaths from tobacco-related illnesses and 80,000 from alcohol abuse.[2] Although these drugs constitute about 20% of all yearly deaths in the U.S, and although preventable by direct prohibition, they are legal to use.

Drug addiction as a public health issue

If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. By selling drugs in state clinics or stores, the government would be able to maintain quality control over drug sales. As with alcohol, the Food and Drug Administration (in US) would guarantee purity and safety (Wink 111-113). Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross conclude that drug legalization would result in a reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose. Producers and traffickers currently sell poisonously diluted drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. Legalization would allow a control of the diluted form and extent.

"If drug purities were standardized and clearly and accurately labeled, the likelihood of a person accidentally overdosing would be much less than it is under the present regime" (37-38). Administration of clean needles would lessen disease transmitted by drug abusers, including AIDS. Pregnant women with drug problems would receive better prenatal care (Duke 116-117). Furthermore, the introduction of addictive agents added into the drug can also be regulated.

Judge James P. Gray, an advocate of drug legalization, believes that the only way to solve a progressively unsuccessful war on drugs is to decriminalize it and make it a health issue (Luna). Currently, it is difficult for drug users to ask for help or seek treatment because of the criminal status of drugs; drug abuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes "it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled criminals and go to jail—with almost no hope of therapy or rehabilitation—while the users of the powerful drug alcohol are considered sick and given therapy." The government provides very little funding for drug treatment (53), resulting in the abuse of addicted people. New York City imprisons one drug abuser for more than 150 dollars per day, but ignores the need of the user. Convicted addicts without money have to wait at least four months for therapy (Kane 155). Treatment is "available for only about 15 [percent] of the nation's drug addicts." Recurrently, judges have to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines when prosecuting drug users. The New York Times mentions that in New York in April 1993, two federal judges were fed up with the guidelines and refused to hear any case that was drug-related (Riga 53).

Drugs cannot be used for medical purposes because of prohibition. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug, which means that it has no accepted medical uses. The benefits of its use include easing the pain of terminally ill patients. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+).

The Netherlands government treats drug use as a health problem, not a criminal problem (although there is criminal punishment for trafficking in some "harder drugs"). Because of the country's decision, treatment for drug addiction is widely available in the Netherlands. In Amsterdam 75 percent of heroin addicts are on treatment. "HIV infection rate among injective drug users in cities like Amsterdam has dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent and is now one of the lowest in the world" (Wink 111-113).

A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegaly. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users injecting brick dust with which their heroin had been cut, the more toxic (and easier to make) derivative MDA sold as MDMA etc.

User cost of drugs

When the cost of drugs increases, drugs users are more likely to commit crimes in order to obtain money to buy the expensive drugs (Duke 115). Legalizing drugs would make drugs reasonably cheap (Kane 155). Poor addicts or recreational users would be capable of honest work and would not be driven to commit criminal acts to support their habits.

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws

Some consider the war on drugs, at least in the United States, to be a "war on some drugs"...and some drug users. Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize African-Americans more harshly and more often than other ethnic groups, and to penalize the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes. The belief that "hard" drugs such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences[citation needed] than "soft" drugs such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of offenders convicted for selling crack are poor and/or black, while the majority of those convicted for selling cocaine are not. In fact, Blacks only constitute 13% of all known drug users, but represent 35% of all arrests for drug possession and 74% of all those sentenced to prison for drug possession[3]. In addition, the convention of selling crack in heavily patrolled neighborhoods makes crack dealers easier targets for arrest than cocaine dealers, who tend to operate in private areas, such as dance clubs and college campuses. If this does not demonstrate that antidrug laws are useless in themselves (so the argument goes), it shows that they are clearly being implemented inequitably.

The creation of drug cartels

Massive arrests of local growers of marijuana, for example, not only increases the price of local drugs, but protects the major drug cartels from any competition. Only major retailers that can handle massive shipments, have their own small fleet of aircraft, troops to defend the caravans and other sophisticated methods of eluding the police (such as lawyers), can survive by this regulation of the free market by the government.

Milton Friedman :"...it is because it's prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."

Effect on producer countries

The United States' "War on Drugs" has added considerably to the political instability in South America. The huge profits to be made from cocaine and other South American-grown drugs are largely due to the fact that it is illegal in the wealthy neighbouring nation. This drives people in the relatively poor countries of Colombia, Peru and Brazil to break their own laws in organising the cultivation, preparation and trafficking of cocaine to the States. This has allowed criminal, paramilitary and guerrilla groups to reap huge profits, exacerbating already serious law-and-order and political problems. Coca farming has been practiced for centuries in Andean countries, producing coca leaves which are then chewed for their mild stimulant effect. Many of these farmers' livelihoods (whether or not they are supplying the cocaine trade) are destroyed by U.S. sponsored herbicide spraying, usually by air.

Furthermore, the sale of the illegal drugs produces an influx of dollars that is outside the formal economy, and puts pressure on the currency exchange keeping the dollar low and making the export of legal products more difficult.

Same policy for distinctive drugs

Many drug policies group all illegal drugs a single category. Since drugs drastically vary in their effects, dosages, methods of production, and consumption the arguments for or against drug prohibition are blurred.

In contrast the medical community will group drugs based upon common effects. This allows them to properly regulate the usage of the drugs. Should all prescription drugs be regulated under the same system, doctors may find it difficult to prescribe antibiotics due to the fact they are in the same catagory as addictive prescription drugs.

Possible compromises

Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might satisfy both pro and con of this issue, as well as solving many of the problems that drugs cause. In a compromise, drugs would remain illegal, but drug addicts who are non-violent and are convicted for drug possession would go to a drug rehabilitation clinic instead of prison. (Currently, treatment is available for only about 15% of the U.S.'s drug addicts. Now, some people convicted of minor drug offenses may be sentenced to rehabilitation instead of prison.) Drug addicts would then be treated as the diseased, and not treated as criminals. It is said that the drug addict already lives in a cage for life --- his/her addiction. Possession of drugs would be an infraction rather than a felony. Drug dealers, violent drug addicts/possessers, and addicts who possess a large quantity of drugs (probably for sale and not personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons.

This would greatly reduce overcrowded prison populations and increase real prison time for serious criminals such as murderers. For example, a murderer who is sentenced 20 years to life, but who only serves 7 actual years due to prison overcrowding, will serve about 10 years of real time when the compromise reduces prison population. By being soft on minor criminals, penalties become harder on major criminals who commit victim crimes.

Decriminalization of drugs would allow addicts to receive medical aid and free drugs from the clinic. Drug addicts would come back to the clinic regularly for the free drugs. Drug dealers would be unable to sell their drugs to addicts who get the drugs for free. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drugs are illegal in order to sell drugs. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminals. The number of robberies would be reduced - formerly committed by addicts who spend the stolen money on drugs. There would be fewer police deaths because there would be no shootouts between drug dealers and police. Drug pushers would not be walking around asking people if they want to buy drugs as in the Netherlands (where light drug usage is "tolerated"), because they will go to jail, as usual.

Decriminalization has several central problems. Providing addicts with drugs requires additional funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this essentially constitute partial legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may exacerbate problems. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market culture (i.e. organized crime and dealer disputes), prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market culture. Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess (although gun sales are accepted in some countries), or if not actually legal, only a civil offense.

Critics of partial decriminalization — who may either be on the side of prohibition or legalization — warn that the decriminalization of a soft drug (for example, cannabis) in an area may lead to increased sale of harder drugs (for example, heroin). The problems associated with illegal heroin use — fatalities, muggings, burglaries, use of infected needles — would rise in the area, possibly leading the authorities to conclude that the full legalization of cannabis would exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, in the case of cannabis decriminalization the sale of the drug would still be illegal, and revenue from it would still go into the pockets of criminals instead of the government's treasury.

See also

• Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
• Drug addiction
• Drug possession
• Freedom of thought
• Illegal drug trade
• Perverse incentive
• Prohibition (drugs)
• Recreational drug use
• War on Drugs
• Demand reduction
• Harm reduction
• Transform Drug Policy Foundation (charity)
• Drug policy of the Netherlands

References and external links

• European coalition for Just and effective drugs policies
• Drug Legalization, Criminalization, and Harm Reduction. David Boaz. CATO Institute. 16 June 1999. 2 Feb. 2004
• Cannabis. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. 2000. Rpt. in Dictionary.com 25 Mar 2004
• War on Drugs. Mary H. Cooper. Congressional Quarterly 13 Mar. 1993: 243-258. SIRS. 1 Feb. 2004.
• An interview with Pro legelization Nobel laurette economist Milton Friedman
• Information, discussions and harm reduction strategies concerning illicit drugs
• The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
• "Toward a Policy on Drugs: Decriminalization? Legalization?" Currie, Elliot. Dissent. 1993. Rpt. in "Drug Use Should Be Decriminalized." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 55-64.
• "How Legalization Would Cut Crime." Duke, Steven B. Los Angeles Times. 21 Dec. 1993. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Reduce Crime." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 115-117.
• Rolles S. Kushlick D. Jay M. 2004 "After the War on Drugs, Options for Control" Transform Drug Policy Foundation
• America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs. Duke, Steven B. and Albert C. Gross. New York: Putnam Books, 1993. Rpt. In "Legalizing Drugs Would Benefit the United States." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 32-48.
• "Legalization Madness." Inciardi, James A. and Christine A. Saum. Public Interest 123 (1996): 72-82. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Increase Violent Crime." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 142-150.
• "Poll Shows Most Russians Against Legalization of Soft Drugs." ITAR-TASS. BBC Monitoring 26 June 2003. Newsbank. 1 Feb 2004.
• Jaffer, Mehru, "U.N. Firm Against Legalization of Drugs." Inter Press Service 17 Apr. 2003. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [4].
• Kane, Joseph P. "The Challenge of Legalizing Drugs." America 8 Aug. 1992. Rpt. in "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Health and Society. 2nd ed., Eileen L. Daniel, ed., Guilford, CT.: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1996: 154-158.
• Luna, Claire. "Orange County Judge Gray, a Drug-War Foe, Will Run for Senate Now a Libertarian, the Longtime Advocate of Legalization Will Challenge Boxer in 2004." Los Angeles Times 20 Nov. 2003: B3. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [5].
• Lynch, Gerald W. "Legalizing Drugs Is Not the Solution." America 13 Feb. 1993. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Not Reduce Crime." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 110-113.
• McGrath, Matt. "Economic Considerations on the Legalization of Cannabis." Tufts 13 Dec. 1994. 30 July 1997. [6]. Rpt. in "Marijuana Should Be Legalized." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 112-130.
• McNeely, Jennifer. "Methadone Maintenance Treatment." Lindesmith Center 1997. Rpt. in "Methadone Is an Effective Treatment for Heroin Addiction." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 91-95.
• McWilliams, Peter. Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. Los Angeles, CA. : Prelude Press, 1996 (full text)
• Mendez, Julia de Cruz and Ralf Winkler. "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937." Jan. 1996. 24 Mar. 2004 [7].
• Paulin, Alastair. "Taxation Without Legalization." Mother Jones June 2003: 26. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [8].
• Riga, Peter J. "The Drug War Is a Crime: Let's Try Decriminalization." Commonweal. 16 July 1993. Rpt. in "Legalization Would Help Solve the Nation's Drug Problem." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 52-54.
• Rodriguez, L. Jacabo. "Time to End the Drug War." CATO Institute 13 Dec. 1997. 23 Feb. 2004 [9].
• "Should We Re-Legalize Drugs?" United States Libertarian Party. 22 Feb. 2004 [10].
• Thornton, Mark. "Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure." CATO Institute 17 July 1991. 24 Mar. 2004 [11].
• Wink, Walter. "Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Potion." Friends Journal Feb. 1996. Rpt. in "Illegal Drugs Should Be Legalized." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 107-114.
• Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "Great Idea for Ruining Kids." U.S. News & World Report 24 Feb. 1997. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Increase Drug Use." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 151-152.
• Leavitt, Fred. (2003) The REAL Drug Abusers. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Armentano, Paul. "Drug War Mythology" in You Are Being Lied To. China: The Disinformation Company Ltd., 2001. Pages 234-240
• Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., "Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence," in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113-130.