Assignment Paper: Critical Thinking About Drug Policy (Essay Sample)

Name:
Instructor:
Date:
Drug Policy
Introduction
Drug Policy is the government outlined scheme for controlling and regulating demand and supply of the dangerous and addictive drugs. The modern drug policy of US is based on the ‘war on drugs’ campaign initiated by President Nixon in 1971. This campaign concentrated on the harmful diseases inflicted by the substance abuse and hence advocated prohibition of the drugs. Yet it has not made any significant impact in restricting illegal drug trade and international drug trafficking. The economic instability and deterioration of human life still persists. However it fails to realize that it is not the prohibition but the controlled legalization of drugs that can manage the drug abuse.
The article intends to review and assess the arguments put forward in the support and against the claim. It attempts to prove how controlled legalization of drugs and ending ‘war on drugs’ is the most feasible solution on the basis of evidences and rebuttal of counterarguments. The opponents point out the serious health hazards, possibility of increased number of drug addicts and loss of morality in society. But the proponents emphasize on cost saving in law enforcement, eradication of crack, protection of ethics, democracy and freedom, and restriction on drug-related crimes. They maintain that Controlled legalization of drugs is the only effective drug policy that should be implemented in the current date.
Decriminalization or legalization of drugs would have never actuated the ‘crack’ to prosper. It could have eliminated growth of smugglers and crime occurrences, and also a need for policy-change. Conducive subtropical environment, poor drug-eradication efforts and stiff competition among the supplier countries provided cheaper version of cocaine, heroin and marijuana (Nadelman 2). Consumers preferred them instead of the expensive illegal drugs and encouraged crack. Gradually their choice changed from mild to strong drugs. Also the limitations, high costs and ineffectiveness of the drug-prohibition measures made drugs available readily and at low prices avoiding any criminal penalties. The U.S. government had to alter their foreign policy due to the narco-terror in Peru and Bolivia (Friedman 3). The rise in smugglers and illegal drug trade were the outcomes of insignificant foreign export prices, leniency from the custom and coastal department, and absence of hike in drugs cost (Nadelman 3). Cocaine prices are reduced to 20% in last ten years. In last three decades, 33% of the federal and municipal jail prisoners were involved in drug cases. The drug related crimes increased to 23% of total offenses in the state courts. Legalization would have prevented all these outcomes caused by prohibition.
Legalization can save expenditure of jails, police forces, human efforts and resources spent in drug prohibition policy and utilize it in other noble works. Over 75% of total arrests were due to marijuana possessions which represent hardly 2% of total illegal drug consumers in last thirty years (Nadelman 3). Drug-prohibition has spent over $2 billion for imprisoning the drug offenders and about $3 billion for law implementation three decades ago. They continue to rise and exhaust human resources which could have been used for tackling other social crimes like theft, violence or assault (Friedman 2). The same expenditure could be utilized for rehabilitation and treatment of drug-related diseases, educational and job training facilities. Also the decriminalization would lend more than 50% of the organized crime revenue which is $50 billion to the government instead of the dealer (Nadelman 4).
Legalization of drug can avoid infringement of moral values, liberty, disciplines of democracy and free society unlike in the drug-prohibition. By criminally sanctioning millions of US citizens for possessing and consuming drugs is unfair from ethical and social perspective. Imprisonment without any harmful or criminal activity would weaken the democratic and liberal principles of our society (Nadelman 5). In addition, the overenthusiastic law execution can make a group of informers to further threaten freedom of citizens.
The critics put forward that legalization could make drugs easily available in market at cheaper price to increase number of addicts. It is quite possible that the consumers who gave up habit of drugs might go back to it. Also the young generation might get attracted to taste it. The drug peddlers would exploit this opportunity to trap new customers for expanding their business. The historical evidence is represented in the form of former Vietnam Army men who stopped consuming heroine upon their arrival in U.S. where it was costly (Wilson 2). But it is feared that the consumers can resume drugs in such cases. As a remedy, the proponents propose legalization in a controlled manner similar to alcohol and tobacco (Nadelman 5). It can to be enforced by several ways such as boycotting drug advertisements, enforcement of appropriate taxes, and prohibition only to the minors and drivers. Also the regulation on time and place of sale, the consumption of drugs, and checking on insurance constraints can effectively keep the drug abuse and number of addicts in control.
Another counterargument is illustrated by the huge expenditure on enacting the law and higher rate of criminal activities. Legalization would result in increased insurance prices, hospitals filled with drug addicts, and accidents and emergency related with drug abuse (Bennett 5). But the supporters affirm that legalization will reduce terror-filled activities as around 65% of the street crime and accidents take place due to drugs. Consumers can easily reach the drugs without interacting with criminals, and the chain of corrupted officers and drug peddlers can also get broken. It minimizes the probability of consumers becoming criminals in future and thus criminal law enforcement costs get reduced. The drug peddling and illegal drug trade would get weakened and might start to disappear in near future.
The oppositions assert that moral personality and social values would get stigmatized by the legalization. This hazardous experimentation can cause irreparable damage to society since the drug addicts don’t easily give up their habits (Wilson 6). They neither consider getting treatment nor desire to get cured. Often they are needed to take the medications by force (Bennett 3). But caution, safety and patience just like any other risky activity e. g. skydiving, paragliding etc. can easily let the consumer achieve control on his mind (Duronio, “Milton Friedman: ‘Crack would have never existed if you had not had Drug Prohibition”). Since drug consumption is a personal choice, proponents think that it is unfair to not criminalize just for protecting those people who choose to consume drugs and risk their lives on their own accord.
The opponents of legalization highlight the detrimental health implications by drug abuse especially Marijuana. Every year more than 100,000 teenagers need treatment for marijuana overdose (Califano 1). Just like nicotine, heroin and cocaine, marijuana produces negative effects on the dopamine level in the brain causing short-term memory, impairment of motor skills and loss of focus. The addiction of this hard drug can hamper learning and developing ability of children which poses question on marijuanaâ&e...