The U.S. spends the
majority of its funding for
the 'War on Drugs' on stopping the flow of drugs altogether by seizing
drugs and arresting anybody
who owns drugs, instead
of spending more to
prevent the
will to
possess drugs by informing the
general population on
the dangers and issues of drug
abuse, and rehabilitating habitual drug users. In the 80s and 90s many
Americans were jailed for drug charges. They now make
up around
30% of all inmates. Sadly, the U.S. imprisons a
bigger portion of its population for drug-related offenses than
European nations do for all crimes. Over time
the 'War on Drugs' has
shown itself to
generally be inadequate,
financially
wasteful, and immoralmorally
reprehensible.
Portugal's drug policy demonstrates that fighting drugs isn't necessarily an effective way to stop drug usage. In 2000, Portugal established a drug policy that decriminalized the usage of illicit drugs for personal use, improved rehabilitation programs, and made needle exchange programs to slow the flow of diseases transmitted through blood. Hatton stated in his article that after the drug policy passed, "there were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners". The number of cases in court over drug charges dropped by sixty six percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people who had AIDS were addicted to drugs. By 2008 it was to twenty eight percent. The number of individuals who commonly used marijuana stayed at about three percent after the drug policy change in Portugal, and cocaine and heroin usage stayed below 0.3 percent. The statistics reveal that decriminalization didn't cause an increase in drug usage in any respect. While it's possible to realize that Portugal is a smaller country compared to the U.S. with separate problems, and where the same solution could have a different effect, it isn't to suggest there aren't several things that may be learned from Portugal's policy.
The prohibition of drugs also has enabled criminals to profit from an illegal industry, and gain influence over people in their areas. Street gangs within the U.S. fight over their territory in which they sell drugs and endanger the lives of their own members, rival gang members, law enforcement officers, and even innocent bystanders on the street. The gang members are also severely underpaid for the work they perform, as they put themselves at great risk selling drugs. Legalizing drugs would remove the ability for them to even be in a position to put themselves at risk for a modest bit of extra cash. The U.S. has named three paramilitary groups struggling for power against the Colombian government there as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) as well as the Army of Liberation (ELN) have shown notable control and influence in areas with big quantities of coca and opium poppy production.
The amount of money in the illegal drug system made the crime organizations that run them so powerful and rich, they're able tocombat the governments working to stop them. Colombia is destroyed internally because of the drug organizations in the country and the consistent fight by the Colombian and U.S. government against them, which has only been vaguely successful. The prohibition narcotics has given these illegal organizations the cash to work the way they do, just as the prohibition of alcohol did with the Mafia during the 20s and 30s. When Prohibition was ended, it cured the corruption which had been associated with the alcohol industry right away. Legalizing drugs would possibly increase drug use due to the fact it would lower prices on the street and intimidate fewer people from trying drugs as they would be legal and criminally risk-free. The aforementioned issue may be counter balanced, however, by putting heavy taxes on drugs. The extra money brought in through the taxes may go towards rehabilitation and education on drug use.
The national survey results on drug use showed statistics that stated "young adults view experimental use of any of the other illicit drugs as distinctly more risky than the use of marijuana. About 26-31% of young adults ages 19 to 30 think trying sedatives (barbiturates) involves great risk; the corresponding figures are 36-41% for amphetamines, 39-43% for LSD, 44-51% for ecstasy (MDMA), 44-48% for cocaine powder, 51-56% for crack, and 67-69% for heroin". The issue with the previously mentioned statistics is that less than half of fully grown Americans think most drugs are dangerous to take, and this percentage decreases the younger the age group. Making drugs illegal doesn't force people to believe they're any more dangerous. Spending money on education and awareness around the real dangers of drugs does. The 'War on Drugs' is founded on trying to stop people from using and distributing drugs by fighting with laws and physical force, which will never happen. Trying to wipe drugs from the face of the world is ineffective. Instead, the govt. must educate the consumers about the real issues of drug use. Don't attack the production, eliminate the desire and demand.
The economics of the 'War on Drugs' also shows insufficient feasibility. In 1969 the united states government spent $37 million on enforcing drug laws. In 1983 the spending rose to $1.06 billion. During the next ten years spending rose close to $30 billion, a spending increase of almost 100,000% in approximately thirty years. Today, approximately 40 billion dollars each year are spent attempting to fight the 'War on Drugs'. Some opponents may say that if drugs were legalized and regulated to be sold by selected licensed retailers, there would be nothing to stop people from going underground to generate money and steer clear of the taxes and restrictions placed on drug use. Mind you, just like with alcohol, gasoline and tobacco, some manufacturing and sales could be taken underground to minimize prices and such. However, history has shown that with those products a lot of people prefer to do their business legally. The cabability to go to the law over issues while not having to duck under the radar unnecessarily are conveniences most businesses want to have. Customers will prefer buying legally since the drugs will have higher quality and safety controls. Their drugs would stay pure and there would be no risk of their drugs being mixed with other dangerous chemicals.
San Francisco put drug courts in position during the 90s which allowed minor drug offenders to take treatment instead of prison time. The drug court in San Francisco saves $14,297 per case. If the drug courts were expanded to every one of the drug offenders inside the U.S., about 1.5 million, it may well cost the U.S. about 13 billion dollars annually, but would save over 40 billion, which is approximately just how much is spent in the U.S. fighting the 'War on Drugs.' The current Obama administration has firmly opposed the legalization of drugs, and said “that it would increase access and promote acceptance, according to drug czar Kerlikowske. The U.S. is spending $74 billion this year on criminal and court proceedings for drug offenders, compared with $3.6 billion for treatment".
One also has to beg the question of if perhaps the 'War on Drugs' is even ethical. Due to the taboo opinion most adult Americans have on drug use, the seemingly obvious answer will be yes. However, the central ethical issue involved in the legislation of drug manufacture and distribution has always been one of personal privacy:is it alright for a nation founded on a democratic premise to legislate exactly what can and can't be ingested by its private citizens. Telling fully informed adults it is not okay for them to do whatever they wish in their personal and private time by doing something which isn't endangering anyone besides themselves seems hardly fair or truly rational from an ethical standpoint since it invades one's privacy.
In the 80's and 90's the Supreme Court decided over multiple cases that law enforcement officials could search car interiors, mobile homes, trash cans, luggage, barns and fenced private property, and bus passengers with no warrant. In the case of ethics, having the ability to search people's property such as their luggage, car interiors, and even their trash cans without truly defined reason or warrant is a massive invasion on privacy. To intrude on one's privacy and actually tell them that it's more acceptable to invade their privacy than for these people to recreationally use drugs within the privacy of their own home, affecting no one but themselves is ridiculous.
Since the '70s, a useless initiative has plagued the U.S. While the 'War on Drugs' has had the issues of being ineffective, economically wasteful, and immoral, they're not such small concerns that they only apply to the 'War on Drugs.' It is not okay in virtually any circumstance for the government to waste numerous years of effort and time on a worthless initiative, it is not okay for the government to spend billions of tax payers dollars for a war that's going nowhere, and is most certainly not okay for the government to invade the privacy of their free citizens to tell them it is not okay to spend their money and time on one recreational activity or any other. It's not just about the 'War on Drugs.' It's a much larger issue.
Portugal's drug policy demonstrates that fighting drugs isn't necessarily an effective way to stop drug usage. In 2000, Portugal established a drug policy that decriminalized the usage of illicit drugs for personal use, improved rehabilitation programs, and made needle exchange programs to slow the flow of diseases transmitted through blood. Hatton stated in his article that after the drug policy passed, "there were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners". The number of cases in court over drug charges dropped by sixty six percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people who had AIDS were addicted to drugs. By 2008 it was to twenty eight percent. The number of individuals who commonly used marijuana stayed at about three percent after the drug policy change in Portugal, and cocaine and heroin usage stayed below 0.3 percent. The statistics reveal that decriminalization didn't cause an increase in drug usage in any respect. While it's possible to realize that Portugal is a smaller country compared to the U.S. with separate problems, and where the same solution could have a different effect, it isn't to suggest there aren't several things that may be learned from Portugal's policy.
The prohibition of drugs also has enabled criminals to profit from an illegal industry, and gain influence over people in their areas. Street gangs within the U.S. fight over their territory in which they sell drugs and endanger the lives of their own members, rival gang members, law enforcement officers, and even innocent bystanders on the street. The gang members are also severely underpaid for the work they perform, as they put themselves at great risk selling drugs. Legalizing drugs would remove the ability for them to even be in a position to put themselves at risk for a modest bit of extra cash. The U.S. has named three paramilitary groups struggling for power against the Colombian government there as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) as well as the Army of Liberation (ELN) have shown notable control and influence in areas with big quantities of coca and opium poppy production.
The amount of money in the illegal drug system made the crime organizations that run them so powerful and rich, they're able tocombat the governments working to stop them. Colombia is destroyed internally because of the drug organizations in the country and the consistent fight by the Colombian and U.S. government against them, which has only been vaguely successful. The prohibition narcotics has given these illegal organizations the cash to work the way they do, just as the prohibition of alcohol did with the Mafia during the 20s and 30s. When Prohibition was ended, it cured the corruption which had been associated with the alcohol industry right away. Legalizing drugs would possibly increase drug use due to the fact it would lower prices on the street and intimidate fewer people from trying drugs as they would be legal and criminally risk-free. The aforementioned issue may be counter balanced, however, by putting heavy taxes on drugs. The extra money brought in through the taxes may go towards rehabilitation and education on drug use.
The national survey results on drug use showed statistics that stated "young adults view experimental use of any of the other illicit drugs as distinctly more risky than the use of marijuana. About 26-31% of young adults ages 19 to 30 think trying sedatives (barbiturates) involves great risk; the corresponding figures are 36-41% for amphetamines, 39-43% for LSD, 44-51% for ecstasy (MDMA), 44-48% for cocaine powder, 51-56% for crack, and 67-69% for heroin". The issue with the previously mentioned statistics is that less than half of fully grown Americans think most drugs are dangerous to take, and this percentage decreases the younger the age group. Making drugs illegal doesn't force people to believe they're any more dangerous. Spending money on education and awareness around the real dangers of drugs does. The 'War on Drugs' is founded on trying to stop people from using and distributing drugs by fighting with laws and physical force, which will never happen. Trying to wipe drugs from the face of the world is ineffective. Instead, the govt. must educate the consumers about the real issues of drug use. Don't attack the production, eliminate the desire and demand.
The economics of the 'War on Drugs' also shows insufficient feasibility. In 1969 the united states government spent $37 million on enforcing drug laws. In 1983 the spending rose to $1.06 billion. During the next ten years spending rose close to $30 billion, a spending increase of almost 100,000% in approximately thirty years. Today, approximately 40 billion dollars each year are spent attempting to fight the 'War on Drugs'. Some opponents may say that if drugs were legalized and regulated to be sold by selected licensed retailers, there would be nothing to stop people from going underground to generate money and steer clear of the taxes and restrictions placed on drug use. Mind you, just like with alcohol, gasoline and tobacco, some manufacturing and sales could be taken underground to minimize prices and such. However, history has shown that with those products a lot of people prefer to do their business legally. The cabability to go to the law over issues while not having to duck under the radar unnecessarily are conveniences most businesses want to have. Customers will prefer buying legally since the drugs will have higher quality and safety controls. Their drugs would stay pure and there would be no risk of their drugs being mixed with other dangerous chemicals.
San Francisco put drug courts in position during the 90s which allowed minor drug offenders to take treatment instead of prison time. The drug court in San Francisco saves $14,297 per case. If the drug courts were expanded to every one of the drug offenders inside the U.S., about 1.5 million, it may well cost the U.S. about 13 billion dollars annually, but would save over 40 billion, which is approximately just how much is spent in the U.S. fighting the 'War on Drugs.' The current Obama administration has firmly opposed the legalization of drugs, and said “that it would increase access and promote acceptance, according to drug czar Kerlikowske. The U.S. is spending $74 billion this year on criminal and court proceedings for drug offenders, compared with $3.6 billion for treatment".
One also has to beg the question of if perhaps the 'War on Drugs' is even ethical. Due to the taboo opinion most adult Americans have on drug use, the seemingly obvious answer will be yes. However, the central ethical issue involved in the legislation of drug manufacture and distribution has always been one of personal privacy:is it alright for a nation founded on a democratic premise to legislate exactly what can and can't be ingested by its private citizens. Telling fully informed adults it is not okay for them to do whatever they wish in their personal and private time by doing something which isn't endangering anyone besides themselves seems hardly fair or truly rational from an ethical standpoint since it invades one's privacy.
In the 80's and 90's the Supreme Court decided over multiple cases that law enforcement officials could search car interiors, mobile homes, trash cans, luggage, barns and fenced private property, and bus passengers with no warrant. In the case of ethics, having the ability to search people's property such as their luggage, car interiors, and even their trash cans without truly defined reason or warrant is a massive invasion on privacy. To intrude on one's privacy and actually tell them that it's more acceptable to invade their privacy than for these people to recreationally use drugs within the privacy of their own home, affecting no one but themselves is ridiculous.
Since the '70s, a useless initiative has plagued the U.S. While the 'War on Drugs' has had the issues of being ineffective, economically wasteful, and immoral, they're not such small concerns that they only apply to the 'War on Drugs.' It is not okay in virtually any circumstance for the government to waste numerous years of effort and time on a worthless initiative, it is not okay for the government to spend billions of tax payers dollars for a war that's going nowhere, and is most certainly not okay for the government to invade the privacy of their free citizens to tell them it is not okay to spend their money and time on one recreational activity or any other. It's not just about the 'War on Drugs.' It's a much larger issue.
