Legalization of Drugs Ever Since

Legalization of Drugs

Ever since the 1960s when college students began to smoke marijuana, the issue of illegal drugs has been debated. Some people claim, for example, that marijuana -- which has no potential for addiction -- would never have been made illegal, if organized crime had not needed something illegal to "push" after prohibition was repealed. It would certainly seem that the controversy has gone on long enough and that most everything about it has already been said. If not legalized, illegal drugs should at least be de-criminalized.

In "Four Points about Drug Decriminalization," Douglas Husak points out that many people, while they are against drugs, do not want to see drug users punished or imprisoned. He is in favor of decriminalization, which he defines as something like prohibition was during the 1920s when "production and sale [of alcohol] were banned, but not the use or mere possession of alcohol" (Husak 22). I certainly agree that users should not be punished, and his idea of decriminalization would be a step in the right direction, but I would go a stop further. Illegal drug production should be controlled rather than prohibited. Our current drug laws are unenforceable; indeed, the drug war is enormously expensive and an ineffective way to deal with drug abuse.

Husak argues that no good reasons exist for making drug use a crime. He makes three points in this regard. First, he concedes that treating drug use as a crime probably does not violate any basic human right (although civil libertarians might disagree). Second, he is trying to prove a negative, that is, that there are no good reasons for making it a crime. If someone gave reasons for criminalization, he could make a better case refuting them, but his task, to prove no good reasons exist, is much more difficult. Finally, he states that his assumptions about justice are minimal: no one should be punished except for a good reason. In this, he defines what he means by justice. But the first two points seem to function rhetorically more like an apology, or a warning that his arguments may not seem dramatic or particularly persuasive. And, in fact, although I agree with his premise, I do not find his essay very interesting. He tends to belabor.

For example, Husak points out that there are no books that make a plausible case for punishing drug users and begins his argument with a legal discussion. Laws that prohibit drug use are nearly always tested in Court for legitimacy by applying the rational basis test; that is, does the state have a conceivable, legitimate purpose for restricting a non-fundamental liberty? The state's legitimate purpose does not have to be compelling, only rational. Thus, a person who breaks a drug law "can be punished simply because the state has a rational basis to do so." The author points out, "It is one thing to enact non-criminal laws that pass the rational basis test. But it is quite another when criminal legislation is assessed by the same standard" (p. 24).

To punish drug-use as a crime is unjust, but Husak never actually says that. He does argue that other crimes involve harm to others. Drug use may create a risk of harm but not actual harm to anyone but self. He argues that 15 million Americans used drugs over and over again last year, but very few harms were actually produced. To punish all 15 million users for the few harms is unfair, but again he does say that. He also argues that racial inequalities make the system unfair. Minorities are no more likely to use drugs, but they are far more likely to be arrested, tried, and convicted, and minority communities are devastated because of this selective enforcement. He finally takes a stand and admits Americans should be outraged by this.

The author effectively refutes arguments that drug use would soar if it were decriminalized. The price of drugs would not go down, he claims, even if it became legal to sell them. Taxes would take care of that. Lawsuits would be allowed against producers for harmful effects. To remain in business, drug producers would have to pay the costs. Husak also argues that if a legalized drug were really dangerous, it would be taken off the market. His rhetorical strategy seems to be a dispassionate "objective" approach with strictly logical arguments and no emotional undertones. I am not certain that this is altogether effective. All these arguments make a good case for decriminalization but do not consider the human beings who actually use (and abuse) drugs.

If illegal drugs were decriminalized, not just for users but for producers as well, the same people who use drugs now would probably continue to use them. However, they could live more normal lives, so drug-related crimes would likely be reduced. They could seek medical treatment without fear of prosecution. They could keep their jobs instead of going to jail. People who now reject using drugs would continue to reject using them because the reasons why they do not use drugs have little to do with legal or illegal. They reject drug use because they have other more important things to do with their lives, such as getting ahead in the world, earning a living, and paying a mortgage. Drug use gets in the way of upward mobility and success.