article

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 perceived to have detrimental effects to the user's health, with possible effects ranging from acutely impaired judgement/motor skills, the outbreak of a latent psychiatric disorder, to death by overdose, or little or no detrimental effects to health at all. Like alcohol in the 1920's, many illegal drugs were once legal until they were made illegal and their users and traders were criminalized. Pregnant women who have used or are currently using certain drugs have a possible but not wholy proven danger of damaging fetuses.

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 problems or flaws of society are perceived to be caused by the use of drugs or drug addiction in itself. As to maintain consistency with this stance, these proponents occasionally call the reintroduction of prohibition of alcohol. Proponents of drug prohibition are afraid of a society with more addicts and users if the concerning drugs were legalized. They believe addicts would be more likely to commit crimes because their minds are altered, because some drugs, as alcohol, or amphetamines (this effect was and is exploited by the military), may alleviate aggressive behavior.

Commercial exploitation of drug addiction

Some people, especially those who might otherwise support drug re-legalization, are against it because of the feared impact upon society of the commercial exploitation of the addictive potential of drugs, as currently in effect with the legal drugs tobacco, caffeine and alcohol. The basic concept is that tobacco and alcohol are extremely popular even though they are actually more dangerous than most illegal drugs when compared under the same circumstances, 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 even more addictive and pleasurable drugs, then chances would be that even more people would become addicted to the respective re-legalized substance. 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 re-legalizing those drugs will make them cheaper and of better quality, 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 most other 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.

Moral and religious

Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness (except with alcohol, of course) was against their religion's God's will, thus morally to be condemned, and should not be made possible for people of any belief/worldview. *

=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, freedom of religion and freedom of worldview.

Consistency: It has been shown that ending cannabis prohibition reduces the use of the other, still illegal, drugs as it has in countries such as the Netherlands. * Since alcohol prohibition ended and, instead, 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 are usually much more severe when compared to most illegal drugs. In addition to empirical evidence, they cite statistics that show more deaths caused by drunk driving than by drivers under the influence of all illegal drugs altogether, more assaults instigated by drunks than illegal drug users, 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 not explained by a myth that alcohol had a longer history in Western society, which would have caused it to be more accepted than cannabis. In fact, cannabis has a history comparable in length with alcohol, but it has never been as popular as a recreational drug, and additionally, historically, alcoholic fermentation has a history of being a means of conservation of beverages which made beer an everyday beverage and recreational drug at the same time, which is another cause why alcohol use has historically been more predominant.

Moral and Religious: Many religious groups including the UDV, Native American Church and Rastafarian use psychoactive substances as sacrement in religious rituals.

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 illegal drug trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of associated murders and violent crime has been showed to instantly drop to practically zero because the trade gets back to the grasp of law. 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 often solve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do very often. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so easily available. Police corruption due to illegal drugs is so extremely widespread, in the Western countries, that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.*

Drug money is known as a major source of income for terrorist organizations, as President George W. Bush has mentioned, but also for organizations like the CIA. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terror. While politicians blame drug users for financing terrorists, it is perceived as a political propaganda phrase with no scientific evidence behind it. Even worse, US government agencies and government officials themselves have frequently been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions. See Iran-Contra Affair, Manuel Noriega, and http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=55262

Proven Ineffectiveness

The USA "war on drugs" started out with a $350 million budget in 1971, and is currently (in 2006) a $30 billion campaign.These numbers only include direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, and as such only represent part of the total cost of prohibition. This $30 billion figure rises dramatically once you factor in other issues, such as the economic impact of holding 400,000 political prisoners on prohibition violations.[http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

After more than 30 years in practice the war on drugs is having a contraproductive effect on the trafficking of drugs, that is, to make illegal drug dealing profitable in the first place, driving prices up to astronomical values. Since the use of all major recreational drugs except opioids has increased since they were outlawed, the increase in cost cannot be said to discourage the use of the drugs. Rather, it increases robbery and other actually criminal (crimes with victims, versus the victimless crime of drug consumption and sale itself) means of generating income to buy them.

Forbidding drugs can romanticize them

The war on drugs is counterproductive to the goal of discouraging drug use. Another 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's ability to enforce drug laws among those above and below the age of 18, and this causes highschool scholars to become the conduit through which illegal drugs are distributed, contravening the original "protect the children" intentions. Often, illegal drugs are more available to highschoolers than government-restricted alcohol is.

Criminalization generates the enormous profits for drug dealers

Legalization would reduce the profits of drug sale and make it possible to redirect the revenues from drug trade from the currently few rich profiters back to society and would thus acquire huge financial sums which could be invested in social security, public research and other projects that are for public benefit. The illegal drug business is currently extremely profitable since the price of a product increases when it is made illegal, or in other words, its supply decreased. "Whenever there is a great demand for a product and (the) government makes it illegal, a black market always will somehow manage 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 drug policy enforcement efforts have had "no desirable 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 exceed the actual damage that the drugs themselves would cause several thousand-fold. 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%. Libertarian Party opponents to the drug war have stated that if the US government decriminalized marijuana, US taxes could be reduced by one third alone.

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.* 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. Heroin itself causes no damage to the body, when applied either by a medical professional or in a non-injecting manner, but to the contrary, even minimal amounts of alcohol cause huge damage in the CNS (central nervous system, brain) which rises exponentially with increasing dose. Aspirin, an OTC painkiller, is causing more annual deaths than illegal drugs.

Drug addiction as a public health issue

If currently illegal drugs were legalized, drug addiction and misuse would be able to become a health issue instead of a criminal offense, and public health would be enhanced. For one, pure drugs would lead to vastly improved health when compared to illegal quality. 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 lead to a vastly reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose because drug purity becomes known eventually. Producers and traffickers currently often sell to an unknown amount diluted drugs, sometimes even mixed with unknown amounts of potentially poisonous substances.

"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 practically eliminate dissease transmitted by drug abusers, including AIDS. Pregnant women with drug problems would receive better prenatal care (Duke 116-117). Furthermore, addictive properties of 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 drug use; drug misuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes "it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled as criminals and go to jail—with almost no hope for effective therapy or rehabilitation—while the users of the muvh more harmful 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 at the same ignores the need of the user, thus practically throwing huge sums out the window. Convicted addicts without money have to wait at least four months for therapy (Kane 155). Treatment is currently "available for only about 15 * 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 (sic!) (Riga 53).

Illegal drugs cannot be used for medical purposes because of their prohibition. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug, which means that it has no accepted medical uses for the government. The benefits of its use over other drugs include the more effective easing of the pain of terminally ill patients. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea very effectively. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+) but was ignored due to political interests and even lied about having been given their support for the law

The rationing out of medicines often creates the situation where a patient with legitimate analgesic needs is provided with an inadequate supply. As many physicians are wary of being placed on law enforcement watchlists, newer and relatively untested non-narcotic pain relievers are frequently prescribed instead of opioids.* One of these medications was vioxx, which was eventually found to be alarmingly dangerous and sometimes even lethal.

The Netherlands government treats drug use as a health problem, not a criminal problem (although there is criminal punishment for trafficking of some groups of illegal 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".

A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist merely because they are being made illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine/benzodiazepines/alcohol mixed overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl 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 much more likely to commit crimes in order to obtain money to afford the now expensive addiction (Duke 115). Legalizing drugs would make drugs reasonably cheap (Kane 155). Poor addicts or recreational users would be capable affording their addiction with 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 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[http://www.lindesmith.org/library/factsheets/effectivenes/index.cfm. 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 anti-drug 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/manufacturers of the respective drugs not only increases the local drug price, but protects the major drug cartels from 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/corrupting the police and legislators, can survive by this regulation of the 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." (In the light of this argument it becomes also clear why politicians and officials often receive massive direct or covert financial support from legal as well as illegal drug cartels.)

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, the boundaries become blurred.

In contrast, the medical community will group drugs scientifically based upon effects. This allows them to properly evaluate the medical use of a certain drug. 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 psychoactive remedies.

=Possible compromises= Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might appease both pro and con of this issue, as well as solving some of the most aggravating problems that the current drug laws cause. To appease the moralists and to keep a limited but smaller illegal drug market (profits!), the respective 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. 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 (no matter if for sale or personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons, the only group of felons without victims.

This would 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 crimes with victims.

Decriminalization of still illegal 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 have a harder time to sell their drugs to addicts who get their supply of drugs for free or for a reasonable, thus not interesting price for the dealer. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drug laws are enforced enough for him to keep a profitable price. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down real criminals, violent perpetrators like murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminal offenses. 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.

Partial drug decriminalization has several central problems. Providing addicts with drugs requires funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this essentially constitutes partial legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may shift profits from the usual drug cartels to pharmaceutical organizations. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market (i.e. organized crime), prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market since the amount of drug would be controlled by the clinic and not the drug user himself. Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are not harmful to anybody else than the involved parties.

Critics of partial decriminalization — who may either be on the side of prohibition or legalization — warn that the decriminalization of a drug (for example, cannabis) in an area may lead to increased sale of other drugs with a still existing black market(for example, heroin). The problems associated with illegal drug use — muggings, burglaries, use of infected needles — would remain or even rise in the area, possibly misleadingly leading some people to conclude that the full legalization of (the) illegal drug(s) 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 drug cartels, corrupted government officials and other criminals instead of the government's treasury and thus the people of a society.

= See also =

= References and external links =

Debates | Drugs

Legalisierung von Drogen

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Arguments for and against drug prohibition".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world