Analysis of arguments in William Bennett's essay

¶ … legalization of drugs in the United States as a means of curbing the problem the country currently faces. Bennett's position is that legalization would only escalate the problem, whereas projected benefits such as "taking the profit out of the business" would be non-existent in the light of increasing usage. Bennett then calls for a national drug policy that creates stricter legislation and enforcement in terms of the drug policy.

Bennett uses a number of arguments to support his position. The most convincing and compelling of these is probably the practical example of individuals, families, and communities who have been victimized by the drug trade. Bennett argues that these communities have been victimized not only by "root causes" such as peer pressure and poverty, but by the availability of drugs themselves. He furthermore argues that these communities are fighting valiantly against the prevalence of drugs in their community by means of rehabilitation programs and community and family unity. However, he also argues that these efforts are most effective and indeed only effective in the long-term with the help of law enforcement.

Another important, and somewhat chilling argument, is the fact that drug use has escalated when substances became widely available and relatively inexpensive. Legalizing drugs would make it even more accessible, not only to adults, but also to school children with pocket money budgets that would suddenly be able to cover these self-destructive habits.

For me, Bennett's most compelling argument is the effect of drugs on the human body and mind. Regardless of the basic human right to be self-destructive, Bennett's strongest argument is that, providing general public access to drugs would have devastating effects upon the country's most valuable asset: the human mind.

Regardless of all other arguments, there is no denial of the fact that drugs destroy individual lives, families, communities, and the human mind. The future that Bennett projects for a country where drugs have become as readily available as alcohol is a chilling one indeed. Perhaps it is ironic that one of Bennett's weaker arguments relates to the Prohibition during the 1920s.

The author claims that, contrary to many existing arguments and evidence, the Prohibition was not necessarily the instigator of soaring crime rates. Furthermore, he also claims that alcohol usage diminished drastically as a result of its illegalization. Although this may well be, Bennett provides no statistical or research evidence as proof of these claims. Indeed, he addresses the topic only briefly, as a springboard for his counter-arguments. It is almost as if the issue was addressed only for the benefit of those who would use the events surrounding the Prohibition as an argument in favor of legalizing drugs. I feel that the author could have made his argument much stronger by providing research evidence for his claims.

Nevertheless, the general logic of his arguments against legalizing drugs is compelling. Considering the effect, as stated, that alcohol has on families and communities today, one cannot fault the claim that it is hardly a sound model for legalizing even more harmful substances for release into the vulnerable community.