Arguments for and against drug prohibition - Definition and Overview

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

The prohibition of drugs is a subject of considerable controversy.

Arguments for prohibition

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. Thus the prohibition of drugs would correct many of these problems and improve society as a whole.

Crime Rates

Many studies have been conducted concerning the connection between drug addiction and property crime. One such study, conducted by Douglas Anglin and John Ball, shows that the most addicted commit large number of crimes. “Crime rates seem to increase when their heroin use increases and to fall when it declines.” Studied drug addicts in Baltimore committed crime (including the posession of the drug as a crime) on an average of 255 days per year, during which time they were “actively addicted” to heroin. When they were not actively taking heroin, they only committed crime on 65 days (Currie 61).

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 argument 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 tobbaco and alcohol companies. If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasureable, then chances are even more people would become addicted. This genre of critics is pesimistic that a system could ever be created whereby drugs could be legalized but not be commercially exploited. 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. 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 expliotation of physiological addiction, but also of psychological addiction, which in addition to drug use can occur in relation to many types of behaviour, for example gambling, overeating and economic consumption. The argument that potentially addictive activities should be banned or restricted to prevent commercial exploitation can be seen as socialist in nature, because the people are protected from a negative consequence of economic origin that they would not be protected from in a free market capitalist economy.

Arguments against prohibition

Just as the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies (Wink 111), the legalization of drugs could have similar effects. 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).

Ineffective and costly drug law enforcement

Current drug law enforcement is costly and ineffective. To begin with, law enforcement officials are spending much tax money on the crusade against drugs (McGrath 124). Steven B. Duke comments that the current drug war costs 9 billion dollars on a federal level, 18 billion dollars on state and local levels, and 10 billion dollars from property losses of crime victims (117). Over 100 billion dollars war spent on the war on drugs from 1980 to 1992 (Duke and Gross 32-33). The National Institute of Drug Abuse reported that in 1990 six million citizens were steady illegal drug users, double the estimate taken in 1980. The expensive drug war has certainly not reduced drug addiction (Riga 53).

The government expenses for enforcement for the first ten years of Prohibition was 88 million dollars, or around 773 million in 1993 dollars. The cost was about 22 billion dollars during the Reagan years and about 45 billion during Bush’s four years in office. The government spent 16 billion dollars on drug regulation in FY 1998. In FY 1999 they approved a budget of 17.9 billion dollars (Boaz). Over a fifteen-month period ending in 1987, the Air Force spent 3.3 million dollars trying to stop illicit drugs at U.S. borders. They concluded the term with only eight successful seizures. Similarly, the Coast Guard and Navy spent 40 million dollars and completed the fifteen-month period with only 20 successful seizures of drug-carrying vessels (Wink 108).

Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross state that more than half of the cost of law enforcement is associated with drug-related crimes (32) and that drug enforcement is not self-sustaining. In 1991 the government’s drug cash and property seizures totaled just one million dollars; the government spent 12.5 million dollars on drug programs that year. In addition, taxes are high because of the increased police protection (33-34).

Not only is the current enforcement costly, but also the great wealth leads to the “corruption of police, judges, and elected officials” (Wink 108). Law enforcement resources are being diverted as well (Cooper). The police are unable to deal with serious threats (Kane 155) because drug arrests and related crimes use up police resource and energy (Duke 116). If drugs are legalized the police will be able to protect society from real criminals.

Mary H. Cooper believes that many courts and prisons are overcrowded. The U.S. has a higher imprisonment rate than any other country. “[Forty] states are under court orders for overcrowding” (Duke 116). Drug convictions caused an 80 percent increase in prison population from 1985 to 1995. In 1990, 52.6 percent of prisoners were drug-related criminals, while in 1996, 59.6 percent were drug-related criminals. Violent offenses decreased from 18 percent in 1990 to 12.4 percent in 1996. Property offenses decreased from 14 percent in 1990 to 8.4 percent in 1996. Most drug offenders were non-violent (Boaz). The funds needed to build prisons fast enough for more space is not available. To make room for drug users and dealers, violent criminals are having their sentences shortened or are being paroled early (Duke 116-117). With legalization, more room will be created in existing prisons for dangerous criminals (“Should”).

Rise in tax revenue

In addition, the legal sale of currently illegal drugs would raise tax revenue (Riga). Legalizing and taxing marijuana would be a huge benefit to the nation’s economy (McGrath 127). The new taxes would be similar to those from gambling and from alcohol (Riga). Current drug tax laws were pioneered in Arizona in 1983. According to the law, dealers stuck stamps on illegal drugs to prove that they had paid the tax. The dealers were assured that buying stamps would not make them criminal targets. North Carolina’s tax department obtained 66 million dollars in fines from dealers without stamps. A total of 63 stamps were sold, three to actual traders and the rest to stamp collectors. Soon after 1983, the laws were adopted by 16 other states, but were later proven to be ineffective (Paulin). Drug prohibition drives the drug problem underground and lets criminals earn money. The government would be able to receive great tax profits if drugs were legalized (“Should”).

Reduction in drug dealing profits

Also, 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” (“Should”). 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).

Drug addiction as a public health issue

Furthermore, if drugs were legalized, drug addiction 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 control over drug sales. Like alcohol, Food and Drug Administration would guaranty 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 more concentrated, more deadly, and more addictive drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. Legalization would allow users to use more diluted forms. “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).

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 a sickness (“Should”). 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 rehab – 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 has made drug use a health problem, not a criminal problem. 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 living virtually normal lives. “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).

Cost of Drugs

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

Racist enforcement of drug laws

Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize African-Americans more harshly and more often than other ethnic groups. 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. Not surprisingly, the majority of offenders convicted for selling crack are African-American, while the majority of those convicted for selling cocaine are not. 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 show that drug laws are useless, it shows that they are clearly being implemented incorrectly.

Point-counterpoint For Drug Prohibition

These are the main points people make for drug prohibition, and counter-points made by people against it:

Amoral

• A state cannot tolerate or be involved with the distribution of substances the use of which is considered immoral by much of the population.
  • A free society avoids the "Tyranny of the Majority". A state that attempts to criminalize victimless behaviors is authoritarian and not free.

Dangerous to Self

• Recreational use of certain drugs is unhealthy and dangerous for the user's body. Therefore, it cannot be produced or distributed with the help of the state, because the goal of the state is to protect citizens' health and not to expose them to risk.
  • Nearly any activity, from driving a car to cleaning the house, can be dangerous. The legalization of drugs can aid in the minimization of the dangers of drug use (see harm reduction). It is worth noting that the effects of marijuana on the mind (including "amotivational syndrome") and body are minimal to nonexistent, especially when compared with other, legal activities (e.g. drinking alcohol) ***The dangers of driving and other legal activities are a result of accidents. The brain damage associated with drug use is a result of regular use and generally cannot be avoided.
    • While it is true that many activities include some level of danger, that does not mean that they are all equally dangerous. Drug use is unacceptably dangerous, regardless of how dangerous other legal human activities may be.
      • No one has died from an overdose of THC
    • At least one successful murder defense has been mounted
  • It is not worthwhile for a law to forbid persons from willingly exposing their own bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating, bungee-jumping, getting tattoos, or volunteering to work in leprosaria. Obesity is a USA national epidemic, killing millions every year, but the government has no right and does little to regulate how much citizens eat.
    • The use of some drugs may be significantly more dangerous than most of these activities.
    • Drug use may underwrite other forms of crime that endanger other people.
      • Some drug-related crime may occur as a result of drugs being illegal, and possibly therefore expensive and impure.

• Drugs are addictive 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths2.htm). Hence, they rob the user of free will in a similiar sense that slavery does. A drug user can not make an informed and rational decision to continue using drugs because the use of the drug eliminates that user's ability to think logically.
  • Drug users exercised free will when they chose to use drugs; a person has the right to give up his or her own freedom.
  • No drug exists which eliminates free will, although death is possible. It is possible to quit using any drug, even if it is unlikely.
  • Many banned drugs are not addictive, or are significantly less deleterious to free will than legal alcohol or tobacco. Severe physiological addiction has been demonstrated for tobacco (stronger than cocaine), but no strong physiological addiction has been shown for marijuana 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm).
  • Society condones or promotes psychological addiction to other activities that may be harmful, including overwork or conspicuous consumption.

Dangerous to Others

• Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user, in the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs (1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths3.htm)), neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. Drugs should remain illegal to minimize these effects of drug use.
  • Drug legalization would reduce health care costs overall by reducing the probability of overdoses and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug through standardization of drug purity and quality control by state-sponsored production and/or regulation of sale. In addition, there is no evidence of prohibition significantly reducing the use of drugs 1 (http://www.csdp.org/edcs/theneed.htm), 2 (http://www.acep.org/1,2886,0.html); so legalizing them would not raise health care costs significantly.
  • The violence associated with the use of drugs would be greatly decreased if the price was lower, as would certainly happen upon drug legalization. Most drug-related crime is caused by users attempting to find funding to buy drugs at artificially inflated prices (caused by prohibition raising the risk and cost of creation, transport and sale of drugs). 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q6)
    • The spread of crack has shown the exact opposite to be true.
  • There is no clear and obvious third party harm. All examples of such are caused by related activities that can be illegal without blanket prohibition. For example, driving while intoxicated is illegal, while drinking alcohol without driving is not. The harm caused to children by their parents' excessive drug use is criminal insofar as it constitutes child abuse through neglect; drug-specific laws are unneeded. By this logic, alcohol, TV, video games, shopping, gambling, cleaning, sex, reading and writing, and virtually any hobby or occupation should be prohibited as some parents may neglect their children in order to focus on having sex, running a business, or building model railways.
    • The other activities may be less addictive than drugs.

Bad For Society

• Drug use negatively impacts the economy in the form of users missing work and doing shoddy work.
  • The War on Drugs has not been shown to reduce drug use 1 (http://www.csdp.org/edcs/theneed.htm), 2 (http://www.acep.org/1,2886,0.html). Hence, drug legalization would have no effect on this.
  • If a worker does shoddy work, (s)he can be fired.
    • Firings would also negatively affect the economy
      • Firings would cause other, more competent people to be hired, resulting in less people who want work but can't get it.
  • People who lose or are unable to gain jobs because of drug testing are a bigger drain on the economy than lower productivity from drug use.

Encouraging Drug Use / Stronger Drugs

• If currently illegal drugs were legalized, dealers would invent new, more dangerous and addictive drugs in order to maintain their profit flow.
  • Illegalization promotes more compact drugs which can be hidden and these are more addictive than more dilute legal drugs that are typically preferred by consumers.
  • Any drug with a market can be legalized for personal use, with a controled quality and distributed through lawful channels. This may occur a few times, but dealers will quickly learn that they only waste time and money inventing something that lawful businesses will sell at cheaper prices, with a uniform quality.

• The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the 'Gateway'[1] (http://preventionpartners.samhsa.gov/que_gwdrugs_p1.asp) or 'Stepping Stone'[2] (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlr5.htm) [3] (http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.cannabis.html) theory).
  • No peer-reviewed scientific study has ever concluded this; many have concluded that the Gateway Theory is clearly untrue, and some have even concluded that marijuana use helps prevent the use of other drugs. 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm), 2 (http://drugwarfacts.com/gatewayt.htm), 3 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth13.shtml), 4 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q14)
  • Most motorbikers started out riding a normal bike. But it's clearly not true that riding a bike automatically leads you to ride a motorbike.

• Once legalized, corporations would advertise and promote addictive drugs to increase profit. This is exemplified by the currently legal drugs tobacco and alcohol, which are arguably far less pleasurable than other illegal drugs, yet far more popular currently, seemingly because they are legal.
  • Corporate advertising is restricted in varying ways for several sectors of the economy, including the tobacco industry. These restrictions, or stronger ones, could be enacted against companies promoting currently illegal drugs.

• The legalization of recreational drugs (particularly marijuana) would undermine efforts to reduce or eliminate tobacco smoking by adults and youth, which some parties are trying to ultimately make illegal.
  • Tobacco use should continue to be discouraged through education, proper labelling, and taxation. Making it illegal would inflate prices, encouraging people who to sell it on the black market and encourage users to steal in order to pay for it. It would also take away the incentive to refrain from selling to minors, and put the lives of tobacco smokers at risk, since they would use tobacco of unknown purity. We currently have the same problems with illegal drugs. If they were legal and laws were passed to require labelling, warning, and age restrictions then the sellers would have an incentive to obey the laws and the drug would no longer have currency in the black market.
  • If cannabis was legalised, less harmful ways of taking it than smoking it could be encouraged and developed. For example, pre-prepared hash cookies and hash cakes could be sold, and cannabis can also apparently be taken in sprays.

Miscellaneous For Prohibition

• If drugs were legalized, the companies that manufacture and market them would be sued, as Big Tobacco has been sued in the United States.
  • Big Tobacco was sued because the companies involved lied and misrepresented the facts in order to present their product as safe when they knew it was not. It does not have to be this way. Legalization of drugs does not mean that there will be national marketing campaigns encouraging heroin use, as some critics have claimed. Marketing currently illegal drugs can remain totally prohibited, or regulated in varying degrees while not decreasing availability for those who desire to use the drugs.
  • This is an issue of civil law and not criminal law.
  • If drugs were produced or marketed by legitimate companies, those companies could be held responsible for purity and safety.

• If currently illegal drugs are legalized, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have to be shut down, meaning that all health and safety restrictions on foods and drugs will be eliminated. Massive epidemics of diseases, overdoses and accidental drug interactions will occur. 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths10.htm)
  • This is a meaningless scare tactic with no basis in reality. Drug legalization does not mean a lack of regulation. Cigarettes come with warnings. Alcoholic beverages are clearly marked with the amount of alcohol. Currently, legal drugs contain a listing of all active and inactive ingredients. Illegal drugs could only be sold legally with ingredients lists, warnings, and purity levels clearly marked. There is no legal or moral reason the FDA would have to be shut down.
  • The FDA would indeed play an important role in the regulation of recreational substances. The government's sole role in protecting the citizenry is to educate and warn. The FDA would ensure purity, dose size, and provide for accurate labeling, indications, and warnings where appropriate.

• In many countries drugs law are very severe. In Singapore you may be hanged for possessing more than a certain amount of cannabis. In the USA, as explored in the book Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser, many people convicted of marijuana trafficking are serving life sentences without parole, a higher sentence than that received by most murderers in the USA. In the UK cocaine and heroin dealers often serve longer sentences than rapists. Possession of a gun is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment, which possession of cocaine, heroin or ecstasy is punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment. Supplying (or possessing with intent to supply) cocaine, heroin or ecstasy is punishable by a maximum life sentence, and supplying cannabis is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment, much more severe than the penalties for illegally suplying guns. In fact the maximum punishment for membership of proscribed terrorist organisations (like Al Qaeda) in Britain is ten years in jail, less than for supplying marijuana.

Point-counterpoint Against Drug Prohibition

Hinders Human Rights

• Drug use is a victimless crime and hence, should be legal.
  • Drug use has no single individual victim besides the drug user himself, but places the burden of caring for and dealing with addicts on the rest of society. Essentially, the entire society is the victim of drug use in the same way that insider trading, another victimless crime, negatively affects every trader in the market.
    • Insider trading is not victimless as unwary investors are harmed, but personal recreational substances use, in and of itself, is victimless as no one is harmed.
  • Drug use has harmful effects on third party individuals 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths9.htm), such as babies born addicted to drugs 1 (http://www.adf.org.au/adp/), or traffic accidents caused by intoxication 1 (http://www.paihdelinkki.fi/english/infobank/100_information_line/134e.htm), 2 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/blue/druguse-01.htm).
    • These are all caused by actions other than the ingestion of drugs, such as the use of drugs while pregnant or driving. One can, and usually does, use drugs when neither pregnant nor driving. It is worth noting that the use of cocaine has not been definitively linked to birth defects or mental retardation, but the use of nicotine has 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/pregnant.htm) as has the use of alcohol. Marijuana has also not been definitively linked to birth defects or mental retardation 1 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth7.shtml), nor to substantially increased risks of traffic accidents 1 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth12.shtml), 2 (http://www.norml.org.nz/Marijuana/Driving.htm).
  • The War on Drugs is primarily aimed at drug dealers and not drug users. Drug dealers are victimizing potential customers.
    • Many thousands of users have been punished; many thousands of people who are neither users nor dealers have been harmed.
  • The victim of drug use is the drug user himself, who needs to be removed from the opportunity of taking drugs. A person who has no contact with drugs likely has a better life than a person who is given the opportunity to use drugs.
    • A majority of recreational substance users lead healthy well-adjusted lives. In many cases moderate recreational substance use helps and enriches the lives of users [4] (http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/buckley1.html).
      • The results of one study show: "We found no significant differences between the two groups on reported levels of income and education in their families of origin. However, the heavy users themselves reported significantly lower educational attainment (P < 0.001) and income (P = 0.003) than the controls, even after adjustment for a large number of potentially confounding variables. When asked to rate the subjective effects of cannabis on their cognition, memory, career, social life, physical health and mental health, large majorities of heavy users (66-90%) reported a 'negative effect'. On several measures of quality of life, heavy users also reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction than controls." [5] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14672250)
        • It is not good to overindulge in everything. Moderate users may actually enrich their lives as it says above even though heavy users will, as with any activity experience negative effects.
  • Victimless crimes should be illegal if they are immoral. Drug use is immoral. Hence, drug use should be illegal.
    • That drug use is immoral can only be based off one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs, whereas Native American historic and religious use of peyote 1 (http://www.peyote.org/), 2 (http://www.doitnow.org/pages/133.html) and psilocybin 1 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_timeline.php3), is not the correct set of moral beliefs.

• Drug use is a victimless crime and hence, is unenforceable: without a victim to report the occurrence of a crime, law enforcement personnel can not know of every individual instance of the performance of a crime; they are not able to convict the perpetrators of the crimes that they do not know occurred. Therefore, drug use should be legal so that the deleterious effects can be minimized (see harm reduction). 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q7)
  • The fact that the laws can not be fully enforced does not negate the usefulness of such laws. Laws against murder, rape and other crimes will probably never reach a 100% conviction rate either. The War on Drugs has substantially reduced drug use 1 (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/druglegal/10dl.htm), 2 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths12.htm) and legalizing drugs would increase drug use 1 (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/druglegal/11dl.htm).
    • Legalizing murder, rape or other crimes would not enable society to minimize the deleterious effects in other ways. This is not true with drug use (see harm reduction).
    • Studies show that it is not true that the War on Drugs has substantially reduced drug use or availability 1 (http://www.csdp.org/edcs/theneed.htm), 2 (http://www.acep.org/1,2886,0.html), 3 (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_drugs_020730.html).
  • It is possible to create a drug free society.
    • There are no examples of cultures that included the use of intoxicants and then successfully eliminated the use thereof. There is no indication of a drug free society being possible in the future.

• The War on Drugs disproportionately affects the poor and members of racial and ethnic minorities (in the United States). 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm), 2 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/civilrts.htm), 3 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q10)
  • This does not change the reasoning behind the laws. Drug laws should be enforced more fairly.
    • This may not be possible. The War on Drugs was founded on racism in the United States. Opium (a heroin precursor) prohibition began to target Chinese immigrants. Cocaine prohibition began to target African-Americans. Marijuana prohibition began to target Mexican immigrants [6] (http://www.njweedman.com/history_of_drugracism.html).

• The War on Drugs has led to a decrease in civil liberties. Previously illegal searches and seizures, confiscations, wiretaps, and other police actions have been legitimized out of a desire to use them against drug smugglers or dealers. 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/civilrts.htm), 2 (http://www.drugpeace.org/headsup/headsup_02.html), 3 (http://drugwarfacts.com/military.htm), 4 (http://www.drugpeace.org/headsup/religion.html))
  • This is true, but is worth it for the benefit of the health and safety of non-drug-abusing members of society.
    • The curtailment of civil liberties does not make anyone healthier or more safe. Unfair police tactics currently used against drug dealers, traffickers, and users could be easily used against people of political, religious, or ethnic minorities.
    • Non-drug-abusing members of society are sometimes harmed by this decrease of civil liberties. Sometimes, homes and other property are seized without any charges so it is likely that people who weren't using, selling, or making illegal drugs have been hurt by the War on Drugs.1 (http://www.mapinc.org/newsssdp/v04/n1757/a03.html)

• The Drug War began for racist reasons, such as the mythical use of cocaine as an incitement to the rape of white women by black men, seduction of white women by Chinese opium-smokers and violent behavior by Mexicans.

Increases Crime

• The War on Drugs increases the profit margin in the sale of drugs 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm), hence, drug legalization will decrease organized and disorganized crime 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm). Furthermore, black market drug sales are not taxed; legalizing drugs and bringing sales into mainstream channels has the potential to increase tax revenue.

• The prohibition against drug use has boosted black market research on finding new, more powerful drugs that can be transported easier and more safely than existing ones. Because they are more powerful, a smaller amount can be profitable, as well as more dangerous and addictive than older drugs. Hence, drug prohibition has fueled the refinement of heroin (from much less addictive precursors) and the invention of crack cocaine (a cheaper, more addictive and more dangerous derivative of cocaine).
  • A large corporation could do this much more effectively if recreational drugs were legalized.
    • A governmental agency (instead of private business) could manufacture and sell drugs, with a strict prohibition against developing new ones.
    • If a corporation did so, it could be required to prove relative safety and clearly mark all packages with danger warnings. It is much easier to force a few corporations to responsibly develop and market drugs than a vast, underground system of individual drug dealers who have no reason not to maximize profits at all costs, as there is no legal method of developing recreational drugs.

• The War on Drugs leads to police corruption, by injecting huge profits into the black market. This inevitably leads to bribery 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/corrupt.htm), 2 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/civilrts.htm).
  • We should hire more moral police officers.
    • The huge profits of the illegal drug market make this impossible. With so much money, drug traffickers and dealers will always be able to bribe some police officers. Often, the bribery extends beyond circumventing drug laws but also to related activities, including murder. The profits to be raised by a police officer selling drugs found in others' possessions (and confiscated without making an arrest or official report) and/or accepting bribes makes the position attractive to some people. In effect, the War on Drugs does and always will attract corrupt people to the ranks of law enforcement agencies.

• Drug dealers will sell to anyone, including children. Merchants who legally sell alcohol and tobacco are not allowed to sell to children. Many high school students report that it is easier to obtain blanket illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. Hence, legalizing drugs will help keep more dangerous and addictive drugs from minors, for whom the deleterious effects are greater 1 (http://drugwarfacts.com/adolesce.htm).
  • Many of these high school students could be lying.
  • Legalizing drugs will send a message to children that drug use is acceptable.
    • This is no more true than saying that the legal status of weapons sends a message to children that murder is acceptable.
    • Parents are currently expected to explain the dangers of using legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, as well as frequently abused legal drugs, such as Oxycontin, Valium, and morphine. If they can do so with these drugs, they can do so with marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.
    • Like it or not, responsible drug use is accepted by many communities. See argument beginning "The War on Drugs is hypocritical because only certain drugs are targeted".

Subjective and Unfair

• The War on Drugs is hypocritical because only certain drugs are targeted. Other drugs, such as alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are legal (in most parts of the world), yet cause many more problems than currently illegal drugs. Even aspirin is, in many ways, more dangerous than currently illegal drugs. (See here (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm) or here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q3) for death statistics and here (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm) or here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q5) for addiction statistics)
  • The legalization of one drug does not mean that all drugs should be legalized.
    • It does if the legal drug is more harmful than the illegal one. Either the more harmful drug should be made illegal or the less harmful drug should be made legal.
  • Alcohol 1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4960), caffeine 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU21.html) and tobacco 1 (http://www.historian.org/bysubject/tobacco1.htm), 2 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu23.html) use have been accepted parts of social interaction for centuries, while currently illegal drugs have not.
    • Cannabis has been socially accepted in many places for millennia 1 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_spirit2.shtml), 2 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_spirit4.shtml), 3 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_culture3.shtml), 4 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu53.html). Hallucinogens, such as peyote 1 (http://www.peyote.org/), 2 (http://www.doitnow.org/pages/133.html) and psilocybin 1 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_timeline.php3), 2 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU45.html), have been part of religious ceremonies in the Americas and elsewhere for thousands of years. Coca leaves (from which cocaine is derived) are still chewed by South American natives with no apparent physiological or psychological addiction or other deleterious effects 1 (http://www.cocamuseum.com/htm/chewing.htm), 2 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU34.html). Opium has also been used for at least two thousand years 1 (http://www.2020site.org/opium/). Cannabis, peyote, psilocybin and coca have probably been used longer than alcohol, as they can be easily harvested and immediately ingested; alcohol requires some knowledge of fermentation, time and patience. The only drugs which do not have a long history of use were only recently invented, such as amphetamines, LSD and Ecstacy. There are, however, natural drugs similar to these (such as LSA, MDA) which have been used for a long time.
      • While Drugs have been accepted in many cultures for millennia, those cultures have developed social guidelines for dealing with them. Introducing a foreign recreational drug to a society which on a whole is inexperienced can have adverse effects. Native American's introduction to alcohol was so damaging, it forced the Federal government to pass the Indian Prohibition Action of 1832, which prohibited the sale of alcohol to Native Americans.[7] (http://ctct.essortment.com/nativeamerican_ragq.htm)
        • It does depend on the culture. However, since it is not possible to completely eliminate drug use it may be better to educate people about drug moderation and provide social guidelines than to try to prohibit drugs forever. As people become more and more able to moderate use the drug could have less and less restrictions. In some countries, such as Portugal there is no drinking age and while there is more alcohol use there is less alcoholism and alcohol abuse most likely because teens are usually taught how to drink gradually, moderately, and responsibly. The same could be done for all drugs gradually accompanied by more cultural emphasis on moderation and responsibility.
  • Alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are only social accepted in the Western world due to an accident of history. This is no basis for deciding which recreational drugs should be legal
  • Aspirin (and other currently legal drugs) can have positive effects, hence the dangers are warranted.
    • Drugs such as marijuana (1 (http://drugwarfacts.com/medicalm.htm), 2 (http://www.csdp.org/kz/mmj2.htm), 3 (http://www.drugpeace.org/news/medmjreport.html), 4 (http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpp.org%2Fmmjargue.html), 5 (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth3.shtml) and counterpoint: 1 (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/druglegal/13dl.htm), 2 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths8.htm)), LSD and other hallucinogens (1 (http://maps.org/dissertation/), 2 (http://maps.org/news-letters/v09n2/09203maa.html), 3 (http://maps.org/news-letters/v09n1/09107jan.html), 4 (http://maps.org/research/abrahart.html), 5 (http://maps.org/research/sewick.html), 6 (http://maps.org/news/1099news.html), 7 (http://maps.org/news-letters/v04n4/04422con.html), 8 (http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/doblin.htm), heroin (counterpoint: 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths8.htm)) and Ecstacy 1 (http://maps.org/research/mdma/israel/styktalk.html) may also have positive effects if used under certain circumstances. That this is true is not currently known for certain, primarily because drug prohibition has hindered research on the subject 1 (http://www.harmreduction.org/news/spring99/mccoy.html).

• The current blanket prohibition of both hard and soft drugs (compare ultra-addictive and dangerous heroin to relatively benign marijuana) lumps both in the same category in the minds of impressionable children. Drug dealers stand to make greater profit off hard drugs, and so will attempt to convince users to switch from soft to hard drugs. Separating the markets through legalization will prevent this. See this (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/druguse.htm) to compare the numbers between the Netherlands (where the hard and soft drugs markets are separated) to the United States (where they are not).
  • The distinction between "soft" and "hard" drugs is subjective.
    • Soft drugs are drugs that carry no physical addiction properties, and thus no physical harm from discontinuing use.
      • The distinction between "addictive" and "non-addictive" drugs is subjective

Leads to Corruption

• The United States, where drug laws are strictly enforced, has high rates of drug use as well as an astronomical number of its own citizens in jail. 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm), 2 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/internat.htm#us), resulting indirectly in prison overcrowding and the early release of violent offenders.
  • This is because the War on Drugs is working. These people have committed crimes and harmed our polity with their actions, and thus belong in jail.
    • Despite the annual arrest of over 1.5 million Americans, and the highest per-capita prison population of any nation in the world, drug use has increased, black market crime has flourished, and completely innocent Americans have been killed by police action 1 (http://civilliberty.about.com/library/PDF/prisoner.pdf), 2 (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html), 3 (http://november.org/).
    • Any definition of a policy "working" which involves rendering such a large proportion of our citizenry into prisoners and ex-convicts (many of whom lose the right to vote) is incompatible with democracy. Further, this kind of effectiveness leaves open the question of whether drug policy was designed to eliminate particular groups of people from the voting rolls as some kind of cynical political maneuver.

• The War on Drugs has led to morally questionable activities by the government (in the United States). For example, governmental agencies use taxpayer funds to build support for the War on Drugs. See here (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/druglegal/) for an example of taxpayer funds supporting the creation of a website about a taxpayer-funded conference on how to drum up support for continued prohibition and to successfully argue against legalization proponents, many of whom involuntarily paid for the website and conference. This would not be accepted if the federal government were using public funds to pay for pro-life commercials or advertisements for Republican candidates, and should not be acceptable for any issue. For another example of dubious morality, see here (http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/index.html) for an explanation of public funding being secretly paid to TV corporations in exchange for the placement of anti-drug messages on certain television shows. Secretive propaganda is always morally wrong and duplicitous.

Does More Harm Than Good

• Drug legalization will enable users to be certain that they are receiving the correct drug. Currently, drugs are often laced with adulterants for various reasons (to aid in trafficking, to increase the effects, etc). Often, these adulterants are the cause of the primary dangers of use of the drug (as, for example, with Ecstacy). In addition, drug users can not know the purity of such drugs as heroin or cocaine; often overdoses are a result of underestimating the purity. These dangers would be eliminated if drugs were legalized and packages purchased were clearly marked with the purity of the ingredients, as well as a complete list of which ingredients were present.
  • The dangers of drug use are well-known. If a user chooses to partake in a risky activity and dies, it is the user's fault.
    • Some drugs are laced with more harmful drugs. If drugs were made legal, users could ensure that the "softer" drugs wouldn't be laced.

• If the goal of a state is to protect citizens' health and well-being, drugs should be legalized so that their purity can be monitored (see harm reduction). The health of citizens is not best served by prohibiting drugs; this only increases risk and harm, and reduces health and well-being. The War on Drugs, on the other hand, places non-users' friends and loved ones in jail 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/families.htm). Hence, the War on Drugs does have clear and obvious harmful effects on third parties.

• Hemp has environmental uses such as in the production of paper, which would decrease the rate that trees are being cut down. Marijuana criminalization has led the government to prohibit its use even for this. Drug legalization would prevent any government excuse to ban the industrial use of hemp. The drug war primarily helps the synthetic-fibre, wood pulp, petrochemical, and pharmochemical industries 1 (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#A_new_future_for_hemp?) because they profit from hemp substitutes which are frequently less useful than hemp itself.
  • The drug war primarily helps victims of drug abuse, not corporations of any kind. There is no known use for hemp that can not be achieved without other policies, and the legal growing of hemp will make it more difficult for law enforcement to enforce the laws.
• Certain drugs that are illegal, such as marijuana have proven to be much safer than some legal drugs, such as alcohol. Marijuana is not physically addictive and has virtually no lethal overdose, unlike alcohol. If it were legalized it may help treat alcoholism, since more may use marijuana as a substitute. Also, in the future strictly law-abiding people who feel like they need a fix, but think alcohol is too dangerous will have an alternative so legalizing marijuana may make alcohol use decrease. Since it is far less addictive and far less dangerous this would be a good thing.

Miscellaneous Against Prohibition

• If a War on Drugs encourages drug use, does this mean the War on Terror encourages the use of terror? Did the War on Poverty encourage poverty? Did the war against Iraq encourage the formation of Dictatorships and undemocratic actions such as genocide?

• Other countries which have experimented with varying degrees of legalization have had positive results (1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/druguse.htm), 2 (http://www.onlinepot.org/amsterdam/netherlandsreport.htm), 3 (http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread15736.shtml), 4 (http://www.ac-company.org/en/news_en/nl_news_en/nl_heroin_en.html) and counter-point 1 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm)

See also

Perverse incentives

References

• Drug Legalization, Criminalization, and Harm Reduction. David Boaz. CATO Institute. 16 June 1999. 2 Feb. 2004 (http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-16-99.html)
• Cannabis. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. 2000. Rpt. in Dictionary.com 25 Mar 2004 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cannabis)
• War on Drugs. Mary H. Cooper. Congressional Quarterly 13 Mar. 1993: 243-258. SIRS. 1 Feb. 2004. (http://researcher.sirs.com)
• American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. 2000. Rpt. in Dictionary.com 24 Mar 2004. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=FY)
• “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.
• 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. (http://infoweb.newsbank.com)
• Jaffer, Mehru. “U.N. Firm Against Legalization of Drugs.” Inter Press Service 17 Apr. 2003. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 < http://infoweb.newsbank.com >.
• 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 < http:// infoweb.newsbank.com >.
• 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. < http://www.tufts.edu/~mmcgrath/econ.html >. 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.
• Mendez, Julia de Cruz and Ralf Winkler. “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.” Jan. 1996. 24 Mar. 2004 < http://www.dhm.de/museen/hanf/hemp9132.htm >.
• Paulin, Alastair. “Taxation Without Legalization.” Mother Jones June 2003: 26. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 < http://infoweb.newsbank.com >.
• 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 < http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-03-97.html >.
• “Should We Re-Legalize Drugs?” United States Libertarian Party. 22 Feb. 2004 < http://www.lp.org/issues/relegalize.html >.
• Thornton, Mark. “Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure.” CATO Institute 17 July 1991. 24 Mar. 2004 < http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html >.
• 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.