The legalization of drugs; a risk not worth taking

Arguments concerning the repeal of the 18th amendment, drug prohibition, have not changed much over the last seventy years; the questions are the same, the concerns are the same, and the policy is the same; the way it should be. Both sides are in a constant battle over the legality of drugs: Proponents of drug prohibition insist that the effects on society would be disastrous- wide-spread addiction, increased crime - Opponents of drug prohibition insist that drug legalization would allow society to prosper - potency control, crime reduction, tax revenues. Even when considering the possible prosperity of society, the uncertainty that is linked with such a drastic change is overwhelming. Ending drug prohibition is not worth the risk.

Proponents for drug prohibition have one good reason to think that the current policies concerning drug prohibition are good ones: in their eyes, no one has been able to provide anything better. If drugs were made legal the first thing that would happen is wide spread addiction will occur. . Millions of people will become addicted due to the legal availability of drugs. With addiction rates at such high levels, it is safe to conclude that violence would follow. Secondly, the price of drugs will decrease due to the ease of obtaining them. The cheaper a drug is, the more it will be used, the more it is used the more addicts there will be, the more addicts there are, the more crime there is. While a reduction in violent crimes may occur, the rate of over-all crime would very likely to rise in connection with the legalization of drugs.

One proposition by supporters for the legalization of drugs is controlled legalization. Controlled legalization calls for the legalization of drugs in a restricted manner: no sales to minors, a control over potency, a system of taxation etc. First, controlled legalization calls for a form of government control to restrict the sale of drugs. Second, controlled legalization would lead to a reduction in crime/violence due to a change in law. Crime would diminish because addicts would not have to hustle to keep themselves supplied. Murders associated with drug trafficking would diminish as lower cost, legal drugs drive the traffickers out of business. Third, and last, controlled legalization allows personal choice as the significant factor in determining drug use, not availability, potency, or price. Those fighting to legalize drugs argue that addiction rates would not reach such extreme levels because most consumers will prefer lower-potent drugs compared to the more powerful mixtures that have virtually consumed the market under prohibition. Supporters for an end to drug prohibition also point out that past wide spread addiction was caused primarily by ignorance, not a desire to get high. They feel drug consumers of today would be educated users, choosing a drug suitable for their desired effects.

In conclusion, it seems apparent that the risks of legalizing drugs certainly outweigh the benefits, in fact, each benefit has a substantial chance of failing. Until a universal plan can be devised - one that can satisfy anti-prohibitionists as well as pro-prohibitionists - it is clear that drugs will continue to be illegal. While the majority of citizens view legalization as a bad thing, no laws will change; there simply won't be enough support to back the effort to change them. The risk of a drug-addicted, violent, unsafe community strikes fear in everyone, it strikes enough fear to keep drugs illegal, that is the way it is going to stay.