A Case for Legalization
The widespread use of substances across the nation transcends national, economic, and racial boundaries. From impoverished chocolate cities to the wealthiest vanilla suburbs, drug use continues unabated. Over the last few decades, America's War on Drugs has repeatedly failed to end substance use, the drug trade, and the violence that currently plagues cities around the nation because of it. Therefore, the best solution to the dilemma requires immediate legalization and federal regulation of the distribution of narcotics. If a policy of tolerance instituted by the federal government controls drugs, and a policy of cooperation existed between liberal-minded states, the illicit drug trade and the violence it spawns could come to an end.
Though seemingly dangerous at first, decriminalization of soft drugs such as hashish and cannabis and the adoption of government regulatory practices would save billions of dollars and generate revenue from taxes. The current federal drug policy inflates prices and crime as addicts commit offenses to fund their habit and dealers battle for control of dissemination.
In 1992, the federal government spent $40 billion on arresting 1,000,000 drug offenders, the majority nonviolent offenders. In order to house the growing number of incarcerated drug users, federal and state governments spends hundreds of billions on law enforcement and prison construction, money that should go to social services and education. According to the National Institute of Justice the fixed cost of building a prison ranges from $60,000 to $75,000 per inmate and about $60 per day for operation costs. Furthermore, the American prison population, presently the largest in the world, contains nearly 65% drug offenders in the federal system. By permitting the use of narcotics, the federal government could create more funds for education, welfare, and infrastructure to create a better America.
Moreover, the criminalization of drugs cannot continue because of its opposition to nineteenth century British philosopher John Stuart Mill's harm principle. In Mill's On Liberty, he concludes that the government should not prevent citizens from engaging in victimless crimes such as drug use because government moralism contradicts the principles of liberalism. Therefore, a philosophical argument for legalization exists and clearly indicates the paternalism of state intervention in liberal democratic nations. If individual liberty and equality truly matter to the federal government, politicians would not endeavor to dictate the actions of the populace solely due to their morality. Government moralism, an affront to liberalism, attempts to force individual to behave in certain ways their leaders perceive as morally correct. If one wishes to engage in self-destructive or harmful behavior, the state cannot forbid one from harming oneself, an essential part of liberalism.
In addition, incarceration does not treat or alleviate the suffering of drug addicts, and in some cases, increases the likelihood of dependence. About 60% of regular users only began their addiction after their first arrest, which clearly demonstrates the fallibility of imprisonment. Nearly 25% of those who experiment with drugs do not abuse so why imprison decent Americans who do not harm others or themselves? Federal drug policy should treat addiction as a health and social problem instead because substance abusers have an addictive personality which leads to drug dependency in the first place. Indeed, medical professionals can treat such people with greater success and less damage to society than prisons because rehabilitation would decrease the probability of returning to abuse. Recidivism, the rate at which offenders continue to commit crimes after release, remains high, between 65% and 80%. This data also illustrates another failure of incarceration. A study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Assistance concluded that only 28% of prisons had substance abuse programs and only 7% of programs included drug counseling, treatment and transitional planning. As one can undoubtedly see, prisons do not prepare nonviolent drug offenders who suffer from addiction to avoid re-arrest and pave the path to reintegration into society.
Furthermore, current drug policy hinders racial harmony and justice in the nation. Approximately 25% of young black males face imprisonment or probation due to drug offenses. According to the United States Public Health Service estimates in 1992, 76% of drug users were white and only 14% were African American, an estimate proportional to the U.S. population. The United States Sentencing Commission estimated that 65% of crack users are white. African Americans, however, account for nearly 35% of all drug arrests, 55% of all drug convictions, and 74% of all sentences. This discrepancy between black users and black prisoners makes evident the racial discrimination existent in the War on Drugs. White perceptions of black Americans remain decidedly negative when one raises the issue of drugs because of prison rates for young Black men even though drug users mainly come from White America. The massive incarceration of African Americans unquestionably damages Black families as well due to absent fathers and the increasingly parched pool of available Black men declines. The burgeoning number of young mothers in prison (more than 70% have children under the age of 18) because of drug offenses also causes tremendous problems for their children, who experience grief, anxiety, aggression, withdrawal, hyper vigilance, or sexualized behavior. These unfortunate children, future products of the foster care system, may commit crimes and suffer from psychological afflictions.
The War on Drugs, fraught with several problems, must come to an end.
Decriminalization of certain soft drugs would decrease the prison population, generate revenue from taxes on the distribution of narcotics, and lower expenses for penal complexes. Of course, a federal policy of tolerance comparable to that of the Netherlands requires international cooperation. America's influence in the United Nations, an organization that adheres to the traditional practice of attempting to achieve a drug-free world, could lead to the adoption of the liberal Dutch policy and finally end the War on Drugs.
Works Cited
Auerhahn, Kathleen. "California's Incarcerated Drug Offender Population, Yesterday, Today, and." Journal of Drug Issues 34 (2004): 95-120.
Buchanan, Julian, and Lee Young. "The War on Drugs-a war on drug users?" Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 7 (2000).
Bush-Baskette, Stephanie. "The War on Drugs and the Incarceration of Mothers." Journal of Drug Issues 30 (2000).
Geers, Thomas R. "Legalize Drugs and Stop the War on People." Education 116 (1995).
Maris, C. W. "The Disasters of War: American Repression Versus Dutch Tolerance in Drug Policy." Journal of Drug Issues 29 (1999): 493-510.
"Winning the War on Drugs: A "Second Chance" for Nonviolent Drug Offenders." Harvard Law Review 113: 1485-1502.
No comments:
Post a Comment