Drug Legalization as the Country

Drug Legalization

As the country was turning into the 20th century, drugs that were in the market were largely unregulated. There were medical remedies that often contained derivatives of cocaine and heroin. These were freely distributed over-the-counter without a prescription and without the consumer being much aware of which drugs were more potent and which were not. There was a caveat emptor attitude towards the use of medical tonics which could have led to the difference between life and death. This is what led to the war on drugs that led to the implementation of drug regulations. However, these drug regulations have since come of age and they need to be removed.

History of the war on drugs

The war on drugs began in the year 1914 when there was the Opening Salvo. The Supreme Court ruled in the year 1886 that state governments were not able to regulate interstate commerce. Additionally, the federal government which had skimpy law enforcement focused mainly on counterfeiting and other major crimes committed against the state. Therefore, they initially did very little to pick up the slack. However, in the early years of the 20th century, all this changed. There was the invention of automobiles that made interstate crime and the investigation of interstate crime to be more practicable Jones 299()

Before the 1970s, drug abuse was seen by many policymakers to primarily be a social disease that could be easily addressed with the use of treatment. After the year 1970, drug abuse was seen majorly by policymakers and primarily as a problem of law enforcement which could be addressed with the use of criminal justice policies that were aggressive Jones 300()

When the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was added to the federal law enforcement in the year 1973, this was a significant step in a positive direction of an approach that was oriented towards a criminal justice for enforcement of drug. With the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of the year 1970 being the formal declaration of the war on drugs, the DEA became its soldiers Jones 300()

In 1986, powdered cocaine was the champagne of all drugs. It was closely associated with the white yuppies than the other drugs that were in the imagination of the public. Heroin was closely associated with African-Americans while marijuana was associated with the Mexicans and Latinos. There then came crack which was a processed form of cocaine. It was sold at a price that the non-yuppies could afford Jones 300()

In 1994, the U.S. introduced the death penalty for drug kingpins to help curb the menace of drugs. Previously, the death penalty was reserved for offenses that involve taking another person's life. However, capital punishment was banned for cases of rape and federal death penalty could be applied to cases of treason or espionage. The bill to include a provision for federal execution for drug kingpins was setup by Senator Joe Biden in his 1994, Omnibus Crime Bill. This indicated that the war on drugs had reached an ultimate high and was ranked at the same level as murder and treason Venturelli 80()

There was a medicine show in the year 2001 which placed a thin line between legal and illegal drugs. It stated that narcotics were illegal except when they are processed for use as prescription drugs. Prescription narcotics can also be deemed to be illegal if the person who is in possession of them hasn't been given any prescription. This is a good measure that provides precariousness that is not necessarily confusing Venturelli 80()

In the year 2009, the drug policy coordinator for Obama's administration, Gil Kerlikowske nicknamed "drug czar," led a call to an end to the war on drugs. His was an attempt to rebrand the antidrug efforts of the federal government into efforts that simply reduce the harm caused by these drugs. He was then promoted to Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) since Obama shared in his vision that the war on drugs had become counter-productive. "Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated... making drugs more available will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe." Venturelli 81()

To date, the Obama administration has actualized many drug policies into enforcement but these have just slightly differed from those of the Bush administration. The war on drugs has, however, remained to be a rhetorical convention since it is impossible to declare a war on inanimate objects, moods, social phenomena and abstraction. The good thing is that it is a rhetorical convention that has been accepted and has determined the way the country views the enforcement of drug policy thus acknowledging that the war is actually an initiative of policy rather than a war. This is the basis of eliminating the war on drugs as spelt out by Gil Kerlikowske Venturelli 82()

For argument

The war on drugs has failed

There are many reasons why the war on drugs needs to be stopped. First is that the war has failed globally and not just in the U.S. This was evidenced in the Global Commission on Drug policy in their 2011 report which stated that the war on drugs had failed.

"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the U.S. government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed." The Global Commission on Drug Policy 24()

The report received a widespread praise and criticism from organizations that were opposed to a general legalization of drugs. Two weeks after the report was released, former president Jimmy Carter wrote an article in the New York Times where he explicitly endorsed the initiative of the commission. He stated that the federal government of the U.S. spent well over 15 billion dollars on the war on drugs at a rate of roughly $500 per second Nadelmann 30()

Sentencing disparities

As a result of there being disparities in the sentencing of offenders caught with different drugs, it represents the lack of fair justice for these crimes. The 100:1 ratio for crack to powdered cocaine was the first to be challenged. In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act cut the disparity in sentencing to 18:1 the Washington Post ()

. Therefore, there is a need to review the crack to powdered cocaine sentencing to reflect the new act that was implemented.

Additionally, statistics on crime and sentencing show that in the year 2009, African-Americans were more likely to get arrested for crimes related to drugs and that they received stiffer penalties and sentences that the other minority groups. The statistics also showed that such events were more likely to happen in areas that had high levels of minority crimes such as city projects and low income housing neighborhoods Human Rights Watch ()

In 1998, the statistics also showed huge racial disparities in arrests, sentencing, prosecution and penalties for drug crimes. The statistics showed that African-American users of drugs made up about 35% of the drug arrests, 55% of the convictions and 74% of those who were sent to prison for drug crimes. Nationally, members of the African-American race were sent to prison an average of 13 times more often than members of other races. This when compared to the statistic that African-Americans only account for 13% of the regular drug users shows that there are huge disparities in sentencing and thus the war on drugs was not a fair process the Washington Post ()

The anti-drug legislation in place has also been noted to be racially biased. A professor at the University of Minnesota, Michael Tonry wrote that:

"The War on Drugs foreseeably and unnecessarily blighted the lives of hundreds and thousands of young disadvantaged black Americans and undermined decades of effort to improve the life chances of members of the urban black underclass." Tonry 82()

This bias becomes clear when looking at the antidrug legislation during the modern, post-civil rights era.

In the year 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson made a decision that the government needed to make efforts to curtail the social unrest that had blanketed the country during this time. His efforts were focused towards the illegal use of drugs. While this may look like an initiative that is unrelated to the war on drugs, it was in line with the opinion of experts on this issue at that time. It came from the belief that about 50% of the crimes that were conducted in the U.S. In the 1960s were related to drugs and this number had grown to 90% within a decade Inciardi 286.

He, therefore, created the Reorganization Plan of the year 1968 which merged the Bureau of Narcotics with the Bureau of Drug Abuse thus forming the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs which was in the Department of Justice (DoJ) Whitford and Yates 40.

Max Lerner attempted to explain these disparities in sentencing.

"As a case in point we may take the known fact of the prevalence of reefer and dope addiction in Negro areas. This is essentially explained in terms of poverty, slum living, and broken families, yet it would be easy to show the lack of drug addiction among other ethnic groups where the same conditions apply." Inciardi 248()

Socio-economic effects

Legalizing drugs has been deemed to have many socio-economic effects. A study that was conducted by Jeffrey a. Miron, who was a Harvard economist estimated that by legalizing drugs, this would inject about $76.8 billion in to the U.S. every year. 44.1 billion dollars would come from savings made from the law enforcement measures and 32.7 billion would be from tax revenue. This revenue can be thought to be broken down as follows: 6.7 billion dollars from marijuana, 22.5 billion from heroin and cocaine and the rest from the other minority drugs Debusmann ()

Many drug cartels have taken advantage of the limited resources of the nations in terms of having low taxation levels in the Central American countries which had been credited with weakening the response of the region towards drug traffickers. 2010 tax revenue statistics show that El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala received just 13.53% from drug legalization. This is as compared to Chile and the U.S. which have taxation levels of 18.6% and 26.9% respectively. Additionally, since these Central American countries emphasize on indirect taxes which are regressive, particularly Value Added Tax (VAT) which is added to goods purchased, disproportionately affect those who are less fortunate and essentially, the rich and the poor pay the same amount in terms of taxes Council on Hemispheric Affairs ()

Drug legalization will also improve the standards of living of many people. There are the growers of coca particularly in Colombia and Bolivia where they have a coca growers' union. The antidrug legislation in place fights growing of coca but does not provide any alternative crops for the farmers that are as meaningful. The legalization of coca will thus help to improve the welfare of these farmers who will no longer be starving and destitute as a result of them having a good source of income Chabat 137()

Antidrug legislation also leads to the cyclic creation of a permanent underclass of people. Penalties for drug crimes among the youth have always involved both permanent and semi-permanent removal from opportunities of getting education, stripping them off their legal right to vote and also the creation of criminal records that make it hard for them to become employed. Thus the war on drugs can be seen to have the effect of creating a permanent underclass of individuals who are less educated and cannot get job opportunities. This does not affect those who are convicted for the crimes. It also affects their families and other individuals both directly and indirectly. Thus legalization of drugs will lead to the removal of this cyclic creation of a permanent underclass Blumenson and Nilsen 15()

The debate on drug legalization looks at the shape of the demand curve for those drugs that are illegal and the consumer sensitivity on the changes in the prices of those drugs which are illegal. Those that argue for drug legalization assume that the quantity of those drugs that are addictive when consumer is not responsive to the changes in pricing. This is a correct assumption and has been verified by studies by economists. Frank J. Chaloupka and Michael Grossman estimate that with a 10% reduction in the price of cocaine, the consumption would increase by about 14%. The study also indicates that a 10% increase in price would not lead to any decrease in frequency of use of the cocaine Grossman and Chaloupka 428.

Though study evidence shows that the consumers are more responsive to changes in price in the long run than in the short run Kuiemko and Levitt 10()

Given that legalization will lead to an increase in the supply and demand for drugs, the standard model of economics predicts that the quantity of drugs that will be consumed will rise and the prices would fall. Andrew E. Clark, who is an economist, has studied the effects of legalization of drugs deeply and suggest that there should be a specific tax for drugs or more particularly a sin tax which would help to counteract the increased consumption while at the same time generating revenue for the government.

Legality of the war on drugs

The war on drugs has been challenged on six major grounds in the U.S. The first is that it violates the substantive due process doctrine in that its benefits do not necessarily justify the encroachment on rights that are supposedly guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments made to the constitution of the U.S. AU.S. district judge, Mary S. Scriven, on the 27th of July, 2011, ruled that the legislation of Florida purposed to eliminate intent as an element of the crime of possessing drugs as this was unconstitutional.

The second is that the freedom of religious conscience allows some people to use drugs. A good example is the use of peyote by the members of the Native American Church with definite religious or spiritual motives. However, the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment leaves some ambiguity since it does not imply the requirement of affiliation to an official church Nadelmann 24()

Third, it is argued that the commerce clause means that the power to regulate the use of drugs stands with the state and not federal law. Fourth is that there is inequity of prosecuting individuals for certain drugs while excluding alcohol and tobacco. In order to prohibit alcohol, it requires the 18th amendment to the constitution. It has been argued that by prohibiting marijuana, it would also require a constitutional amendment and to date, not such amendment has been made Gorman 369()

Fifth is that the reverse burden of proof for the possession of drug is incompatible with the rule of law which states that the power to convict is effectively taken away from the courts and given to those individuals who are willing to plant evidence on the offender. Thus it leaves a leeway for an unfair justice process Campos 379()

The last thing is that regardless of the war on drugs being legal, there have been several accusations of the inequality in the prosecution for drug crimes are evidenced above and which claim that the antidrug legislation targets certain regimes and ethnic group Campos 380()

Legalizing drugs will put a stop on violence

Drug violence has been quite rampant as a result of the war on drugs. Therefore, economists and other scholars suggest that by legalizing drugs, the violence would be reduced greatly. The response of the U.S. government and the Mexican government in the war on drugs has been the case study of these scholars. They have found the responses to be predictable in the form of increase in number of troops and policemen and increasing the border controls and expanding the enforcement. However, this response is akin to fighting fire with fire and it just leads to more violence and not an end to the violence.

Illegalization of drugs creates violence because it fuels the underground market of drugs. This means that the buyers and sellers are unable to resolve disputes regarding advertising, arbitration and lawsuits. Therefore, they have to resort to violence to be able to resolve this. Violence was also common in the alcohol industry at the time when it was illegal. However, after it was legalized, the violence stopped. A similar thing is expected to happen in the drug market.

Violence is usually the norm in illicit markets. However, it is usually scarce in the legal ones. Violence is the routine when policies are implemented which create black markets for the commodities. For the drug market, the only way to reduce the violence is to legalize the drugs.