Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized

Drug Legalization

LEGALIZATION OF RECREATIONAL DRUG USE

In 1920 the sale and consumption of alcohol was criminalized across the United

States pursuant to the 18th Amendment. Consumer demand nevertheless presented a ripe opportunity for criminal usurpation of the illicit production and distribution of alcohol.

Consequently, by the time Prohibition was subsequently repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, the criminal enterprises that it had spawned were so firmly entrenched into the landscape of the American economy that most of them still retain considerable power even today (Dershowitz, 2002).

Modern proponents of decriminalizing illicit drugs point to the complete failure of Prohibition to achieve its goals, suggesting that contemporary laws criminalizing recreational drugs such as marijuana, heroin and cocaine are as ineffective as was the 18th

Amendment, and more harmful to society than the aggregate of all the actual harm caused by the unrestricted use of recreational drugs.

Predictably, those opposed to decriminalization fear the explosion of drug addiction and drug related crime that would follow as a consequence of their unrestricted use. They point to the well established link between drug abuse, juvenile delinquency and petty crimes necessitated by expensive, addictive narcotics (Brecher, 1972).

Those opposed to decriminalization of recreational drugs consider the current level of illegal drug abuse and criminal activities related thereto to represent merely the very tip of the iceberg of an insurmountable epidemic of drug use currently kept in relative check only by strict penal laws that operate as a deterrent to wider abuse.

In their view, decriminalizing recreational drugs would dramatically increase the incidence of narcotics addiction and the crimes associated with the realities of a massive influx of unemployed drug addicts desperate to pay for their ever increasing habits by any means possible.

Proponents of decriminalization reject the suggestion that drug use and abuse would necessarily increase substantially in the absence of penal laws criminalizing their use. According to their view, the epidemic of narcotics-related crime is already at its peak, because it results directly from the criminal elements currently responsible for its importation, trade and sale. Furthermore, they maintain that contemporary laws prohibiting recreational narcotics use have created the same situation that prevailed under Prohibition by creating a black market which has been filled by ruthless criminal

Elements (Brecher, 1972).

Similarly, they suggest that the inflated cost of illicit drugs is to blame for the link between drug abuse and petty crime, because the standard principles of black market economics dictate a much higher price for drugs that are dramatically more expensive than they would be under legislation decriminalizing their sale and use.

Likewise, they point to situations such as in New York, where the so-called "Rockefeller

Laws" have resulted in the mandatory incarceration of scores of citizens whose only crimes were entirely victimless, while violent and dangerous offenders pass through a revolving door, overcrowded criminal justice system (Syracuse Post-Standard).

Upon considering the merits of the respective positions concerning the decriminalization of illicit narcotics, it appears that the views espoused by proponents of decriminalization are more consistent with the overall good of society on multiple levels.

First, it is simply irreconcilable, from a logical perspective, that cigarettes and other tobacco products are sold completely legally, while private use and the mere possession of marijuana and any other agent containing THC such as hashish are severely penalized in many states. Opponents of decriminalization believe that government owes a duty of paternalistic protection of its citizens, but critics point out that even the most well motivated paternalistic laws must reflect a consistency in their application and effect (Taylor, 1982). Meanwhile, cigarettes account for more deaths in this country than all drugs, alcoholism, violent crime and vehicular accidents, combined (Brecher, 1972).

Second, alcohol abuse so closely parallels the effects of drug abuse that it is equally unjustifiable to permit alcohol sale and consumption to account for tremendous corporate revenue while criminalizing private use of narcotics altogether. Naturally, even under a liberal analysis, personal rights and freedoms end wherever they conflict with the well being and safety of others. Accordingly, proponents of repealing drug laws suggest that laws addressing the criminal operation of motor vehicles and dangerous equipment while under the influence of alcohol should be the extent of penal control of narcotics.