Click Here For Research Papers Online!

Should the United States End Drug Prohibition?

The Federal Government, while trying to protect us from our human nature,

developed harsh anti-drug policies with the hope of eradicating drugs. At

the time, these policies seemed simple enough: we will impose penalties on

those who use substances illegally, we will intercept drugs coming from

other countries while ending all drug cultivation in the States, and we will

even try to prevent foreign governments from growing these substances. The

idea of the Drug Prohibition surely made sense: lower demand of drugs by law

enforcement, and reduce supply through domestic and international means.

Unfortunately, the Drug Prohibition led to heavy costs, both financially and

otherwise, while being ineffective, if not, at times, counterproductive.

Today, we can see the unforeseen costs of the "Drug Prohibition," and we

should consider these costs before expanding the "War on Drugs."

First, among the costs of the "War on Drugs," the most obvious is monetary

cost. The direct cost of purchasing drugs for private use is $100 billion a

year. The federal government spends at least $10 billion a year on drug

enforcement programs and spends many billions more on drug-related crimes

and punishment. The estimated cost to the United States for the "War on

Drugs" is $200 billion a year or an outstanding $770 per person per year,

and that figure does not include the money spent by state and local

government in this "war" (Evans and Berent, eds. xvii).

The second cost of this "war" is something economist like to call

opportunity costs. Here, we have two resources which are limited: prison

cells and law enforcement. When more drug crimes take up law enforcement's

time and when more drug criminals take up cells, less ability to fight other

crime exists. This becomes significant when an estimated 35-40 million

Americans use drugs per year. In 1994, law enforcement arrested some

750,000 people on drug charges, and of those 750,000, 600,000 were charged

merely with possession. Sixty percent of the prison population are drug

offenders (Wink). The police, therefore, most work to find these 35 million

"criminals," thereby exhausting their resources. Also, in major urban

centers, the number of drug offences brought to trial are outstanding. For

example, in Washington in 1994, 52% of all indictments were drug related as

opposed to 13% in 1981 (Evans and Berent, eds. 21). All aspects of our

legal system are being exhausted on drugs when it could be used more

effectively on other felonies or focused on preventing children from buying

drugs.

Another two legal aspects of Drug Prohibition are interesting since they

show how the "Prohibition" is not only ineffective, but also

counterproductive. The first of which is the fact that the illegality of

drugs leads to huge profits for drug dealers and traffickers. Ironically,

the Drug Prohibition benefits most the drug traffickers and dealers as

prices are pushed well above cost (Evans and Berent, eds. 22). The second

aspect of the "Drug Prohibition" that undermines law enforcement is the need

for drug users to commit personal property crimes. One-third of the people

arrested for burglary and robbery said that they stole only to support their

habit, and about 75% of personal property crimes were committed by drug

abusers. Studies also suggest that these people, when placed on outpatient

drug therapy or sold drugs at a lower price commit much less crime (Duke).

Even the DEA admits that, "Drug use was common among inmates serving time

for robbery, burglary, and drug offenses" ("Crime, Violence").

Drug Prohibition has been very costly, detrimental to our relations with

other countries, and harmful to users and society alike. All this while

trying to battle an enemy who is not as dangerous as it is currently

believed by most of the American public. The unpleasantries of the history

of Drug Prohibition also show us how the public has been mislead through

Prohibition. Many of these disagreeable acts were not circumstances of Drug

Prohibition, rather goals of it, whether it was understood or not.

The United States' image in Latin America has been precarious nearly from

its birth. The image of the American intent on dominating the New World

plays in the minds of our neighbors. Recently, though, the situation is

interesting since the countries involved are growing less and less

complacent to deal with the losses of sovereignty that they are incurring.

Drug Prohibition not only plays out on the American stage, but is a focal

point of US relations with the countries of Latin America. So, as each of

these countries has to pay the costs of Yankee Imperialism, the tension

between neighbors is increasing.

The first of the tensions comes from Colombia. Unfortunately, our crusade

against drugs has caused the famous cartels of South America and,

especially, those of Colombia. Many wonder if we are justified in putting

pressure on these countries just to slow the drug trade. The deaths of

thousands of innocent Colombians were the result of our actions in these

countries (Evans and Berent, eds. 58). The growth of the cartels,

especially the Cali cartel, has led to political corruption in that country.

"The President [Ernesto Samper] was said to have taken money from drug

traffickers so that the government would stop other groups from exporting

cocaine. He promised in his campaign a fight against drugs, but nobody can

trust a President who took money from the cartels," said David Casas, a

resident of Cali, Colombia. This unnecessary death and corruption in other

countries due to United States' drug policy sometimes lead to hostility

toward us (Casas). Because of the problems South American countries have

faced because of Drug Prohibition, Colombia's Nobel Prize winning author

Gabriel Garcia Marquez has written a manifesto declaring the drug war as

"useless" (15).

Action abroad by the United States has also led to an increase in

subversive organizations worldwide. Civil war is currently being threatened

in Bolivia by a coca-growing union. The group, which feels that the

Bolivian government has been too open to challenges in sovereignty, is

fighting "Yankee Imperialism" and control by the DEA of a coca-growing

region (Epstein 1). In Colombia and Peru, groups like the communist Fuerzas

Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia)

and Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), both Communist groups, that survive on

drug money lead such acts as kidnaping foreign visitors, leading bombings on

American buisnesses in the country, and attempting to destroy institutions

of governments friendly to the United States (Spiegel 480). This subversion

of government can even reach our beauracracy as the CIA is rumored to have

allowed the Nicaraguan Contras to sell drugs in the US to fund their

revolution against the Sandinistas ("CIA" 20).

Therefore, in South America, our persistence on Drug Prohibition has not

only been unable to prevent the further imports of drugs, but also could

lead to the installation of Communist regimes in the area. Since the other

costs of Drug Prohibition has its base domestically, the conversation will

turn to rights and liberties which help to explain why the drug war is not

American and why it might not be effective. This requires a discussion on

the role of government.

The ultimate end of government is to protect our rights. We've entered a

social contract with our governments: that we will give our obedience and

taxes in return for protection of our rights. The United Nations classifies

these rights in three "generations": civil, socioeconomic, and solidarity

rights (Peterson). Shielding our people from the dangers of a threatening

world, therefore, seems to be an appropriate use of the state's power under

socioeconomic rights. The danger in thinking in this manner is that it

overlooks the individual's contributions to the nation. These

contributions, either positive or negative, are generally difficult to

regulate by broad legislation. In fact, at times, legislation can be

counterproductive, trying zealously to protect one right by violating many

others.

We saw in the former U.S.S.R. what can happen when government begins to

enforce positive liberty. Positive liberty is different from what we

usually think of as liberty, which is negative liberty. A negative liberty

is one like the First Amendment which keeps the government from doing

something, namely limiting your rights to speech and religion. A positive

liberty is one which forces the government to provide some service to its

citizens. An example of a positive liberty is the government's

responsibility to protect our inalienable rights. The danger with expanding

positive liberties is that it gives government a more active role in

people's rights. For that reason most would believe that government should

not give itself too many positive liberties as did the Soviet Union

(Peterson). Drug Prohibition is an example of a positive liberty because it

gives the government the go ahead to do what it must to give us a drug-free

America. However, we should ask the question: is it worth keeping Drug

Prohibition as a positive liberty when it infringes upon both our negative

and positive liberties, not the least of which are life and liberty? U. S.

District Judge William W. Schwarzer helped explain this when he said ending

drug use is useless "if in the process we lose our soul" (Trebach and

Inciardi 29). Today he might say "since" instead of "if" since the

injustice and the cost on society of Prohibition is already well ingrained

into our society.

There could be two possible explanations for Drug Prohibition: we must

protect people from harming themselves, or we want people to avoid drugs

because extensive drug use harms society. Proponents of Drug Prohibition

think one or both of these reasons is adequate for continuing Prohibition.

The first is based on the people's right to life, and the second is based on

the right for pursuit of happiness. However, there are fallacies in both

statements, as will be shown.

Before we can admit that our reasoning for Drug Prohibition is wrong, we

must find a better alternative. The solution proposed in this essay is one

of establishing free markets both internationally and domestically. The

proponents of drug decriminalization have basic assumptions about what would

result from a free market. For now, we will focus on what proponents of

drug legalization think the implications of a free drug market would be for

the individual users. These assumptions are that illegal drugs are not as

dangerous as currently legal drugs and that the decriminalization of drugs

will not greatly increase the number of drug addicts.

First, most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as believed, and those that

are truly dangerous will be avoided. This is essential to the argument for

decriminalization since we do not wish to have a large number of people die

from a policy. However, if we compare the number of people who die annually

from "appropriate" drugs to that of the number of people who die annually

from illicit drugs, we would be inconsistent to think of the illicit drugs

as dangerous. For example, 60 million Americans have tried marijuana and not

one of these 60 million have died of an overdose. If this is compared to

the 10,000 people who die annually from overdosing on alcohol, one can

assume that marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol. Also, many drugs

have minor side-effects when compared to acceptable drugs. One example,

heroin, is highly addictive, but when used in a clean environment with clean

needles, its worst side effect is constipation (Evans and Berent, eds. 24).

Overall, while 35 million people use drugs each year in the United States,

only 6,000 to 30,000 ever die of drug use; therefore, there is little reason

to consider illicit drugs as a great danger to the individual, considering

our opinions of alcohol and tobacco (Wink).

Deaths Caused by Use of Alcohol, Illegal Drugs, and Tobacco

Drug Number of Users (per year) Number of Deaths Caused by Drug (per

year)deaths per 100,000 users

Alcohol 106 million 150 thousand 142

Nicotine 57 million 400 thousand 702

Illicit Drugs 35 million1 18 thousand 51

Data on number of users and number of deaths are from Walter Wink's

Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Option except 1 which comes from

Evans and Berent, eds. Drug Legalization: For and Against p.21. Deaths per

100,000 users is derived from the number of deaths divided by number of

users multiplied by 100,000.

Another assumption of drug decriminalization is that there will not be a

large increase in the number of people who abuse drugs. If many people were

likely to become addicts, there would be good reason not to go through with

drug decriminalization. While both decriminalizationists and

prohibitionists agree that the legalization of drugs will lead to more

people using drugs, decriminalizationists believe that there would not be a

large increase in drug abuse. This belief stems from a study of the

difference between the drug use and abuse between poor urbans and well-offs.

The study states that the percentage of poor urbans using drugs is much

higher than the percentage of well-offs who used drugs. To believe that

increased use leads to increase abuse, the percentage of poor, urban addicts

should be higher than the percentage of well-off addicts. The result,

however, was contrary to this belief, since the percentages of addicts in

both groups was almost equal. What this implies is that an increase in

users does not translate to an increase in addicts (Evans and Berent, eds. 239).

Thomas J. Gorman, Deputy Chief of the California Attorney General's Bureau

of Narcotic Enforcement, in his report "The Myths of Drug Legalization" uses

outlandish statistics from "experts" to scare the reader into believing that

legalization "could lead to the downfall of the United States as we know

it." He uses Dr. H. Kelbrs assertion that legalization could lead to a

fivefold increase in drug use ('Myths'). Comparing this type of increase

in drug use and the idea that 35 million people now use drugs, the

conclusion would be that 165 million people would be drug users in the

United States. Considering the United States has only 200 million people

over age 12, believing that such a high number of people would use drugs is

hard. Gorman's report also includes Dr. Dupont's projection that if drugs

were legal 50 million people (1/4 the over 12 population) would use

marijuana regularly and that 60 million (nearly 1/3 the over twelve

population) would use cocaine regularly ('Myths'). These statistics are

scary, but they are just not possible and are not founded in the truth.

They are not possible because they would imply that one out of every three

people over age 12 walking down the street would become "regular cocaine

users." They are not founded in the truth because they use a statistic that

states, without explanation, that 70-75% of illicit drug users become

addicted ('Myths'). Only three percent of the users of cocaine, considered

one of the most addictive illicit drugs, that currently has 12.2 million

users annually, use cocaine once a week, and only 3.7% of users said that

they tried to quit, but couldn't. If we were to assume that all 200 million

Americans over 12 in the United States would use cocaine if it were legal,

then approximately 7.4 million people could not quit if they wanted to

(Berent and Evans, eds. 24).

Many Prohibitionists point to experiments on rats which imply that many

rats, when allowed access to cocaine, would prefer to use the cocaine over

eating. The problem with the experiment, however, was that the rats were

left isolated in cages. A similar experiment in which they placed rats in

more social environments found that rats consumed 16 times less cocaine than

the solitary rats. Also, the rats wouldn't use the cocaine at all until the

scientists made it very sweet with sugar, a taste rats cannot resist

(Trebach and Inciardi 37-38). Also, Prohibitionists argue that before drugs

were criminalized that 4.59 per 1,000 US citizens were addicts. This

implies two things: that when addiction was worst in the United States 99.6

percent of the people were not addicted to a drug, and that if we would

expect a return to these rates of addictions if drug Prohibition were

repealed, then about one million people would be addicted, a clear

contradiction to the claim that 70-75% of drug users become addicted

(Trebach and Inciardi 49).

Prohibition does not prevent a large number of people from harming

themselves, but while not helping users, the health of these individuals is

put in jeopardy. First, the illegalities of drugs make the drugs themselves

more unsafe. For example, marijuana is laced with unsafe fertilizers.

Also, when cocaine and heroin users receive an unexpected potent dose, they

may kill themselves when the same amount of a regulated dose would have

given the desired effect (Evans and Berent, eds. 22). This is what happened

to the Mia Wallace character in Pulp Fiction when she snorted cocaine that

was so potent that it nearly killed her (Pulp Fiction). Another outcome of

prohibition on the individual could also be considered a concern of society

since the spread of AIDS affects both groups. The transfer of AIDS through

needles needed most commonly during the use of heroin has become the most

common manner in which the disease currently spreads. The treatment and

prevention of the people who get AIDS from heroin use cannot be effective so

long as users are being persecuted by law enforcement (Trebach and Inciardi

35-36).

The implications of these two beliefs of proponents of decriminalization

are imperative to defense of the individual. "Defense of the individual"

means the protection of users and abusers from themselves. If drugs are not

as dangerous as currently legal drugs, addiction does not significantly

increase and the health of the users suffers, then proponents of Drug

Prohibition have no grounds on which to say that legalization would lead to

millions of deaths and addictions inflicted on drug users by themselves.

The United States needs to reconsider its view of drugs as leading to the

unavoidable downfall of the individual and instead as the choice of people

with social problems to avoid them.

In contrast with the defense of the individual, how Drug Prohibition does

not protect society, but instead harms it will complete the chain of

fallacies that plague proponents' arguments. To protect society, it should

be that its citizens should somehow be better off. This is not true as the

most expensive cost of the "Drug Prohibition" is the personal cost carried

by the citizens. In the cities, these costs are manifested in murders over

"turf" or "business," fear of walking the streets, robberies, and mothers

leaving children to pursue their expensive addictions (Wink). Proponents of

"Drug Prohibition" must ask themselves this question: "Would you be willing

to sacrifice your son (daughter, best friend) to keep drug users from

hurting themselves?" The reason I would have them to think of this is that

their children are not the ones dying on the street from a

drive-by-shooting. A famous economist Milton Friedman once said of the Drug

Prohibition, "While both groups of victims are to be pitied, the innocent

victims surely have a far better claim to our sympathy than the self-chosen

victims" (Evans and Berent, eds. 58). By examining the world around them

opponents of Drug Prohibition believe legalization will lead to less crime

and violent behavior, less racism, and the end of the infringement of

certain rights.

It is clear that Prohibition has a hand in each of these societal problems.

We would greatly reduce crime, for example, which repeatedly appears high on

surveys on the biggest problem America faces, if legalization were to

happen. Much of the concern about drugs and crime is that the use of drugs

somehow causes crime. These studies are usually faulted by the attempt to

label a cause on correlative data. While it is true that people who commit

crimes often use drugs as well, it cannot be said that the use of drugs

causes the crime. To use a less controversial example, I could notice that

every time my roommate puts on a certain shirt, his girlfriend comes over.

It would be silly to say that she comes over because he puts on the shirt.

In fact, we might say the opposite: that he puts on the shirt because his

girlfriend comes over. Saying either without having other knowledge would

be incorrect. Similarly, saying that drug use causes crime on this kind of

correlative data is not appropriate (Miller 61). Instead, many experts

claim that much of what is labeled "drug-related" crime is instead due to

criminality.

This criminality of drugs is a causal factor in crime because of the high

costs to consumers and high profits for suppliers. The market prices for

marijuana, cocaine, and heroin are about 100 times what the price would be

in a free market. This means crime results from consumers trying to fund

their artificially-expensive habit and suppliers trying to protect their

extremely high profits. Drug users committed about 75% of robberies,

thefts, and burglaries. These 'criminals' do not commit as many crimes when

drugs are available to them at lower prices. On the other hand, one in four

murders and assaults involve suppliers protecting turf, settling disputes,

or stealing drugs (Duke). PCP, one of the most feared drugs, does not

incite aggressiveness or violent behavior, as previously believed (Miller

57). Dr. Lawrence Kolb, assistant surgeon general of the United States in

the 1920s said after a study of 225 addicted prisoners, "No opiate ever

directly influenced addicts to commit crime." He continued:

No addict who receives an adequate supply of opium and has money enough to

live is converted into a liar or thief by the direct result of the drug

itself. The direct effect is to remove the irritability and unrest so

characteristic of psychopathic individuals. The soothing effect of opiates

in such cases is so striking and universally characteristic that one is to

believe that violent crime would be much less prevalent if all habitual

criminals were addicts who could obtain sufficient morphine or heroin to

keep themselves fully charged with one of these drugs at all times. (Trebach

and Inciardi 57)

Violent crime by drug users is rare. A low percentage (7.5%) of homicides

involving drugs were classified in a way that implied that the drugs had

driven the user to murder. The other 92.5% of violent crime by drug users

could be expected to disappear once drugs were legalized and the cases

involved in the 7.5% would be expected to become more common as drug use

increased (Trebach and Inciardi 120). Nevertheless, for there to be an

equivalent number of drug-related homicides, the number of people driven by

drugs to commit murder would have to increase by tenfold. One example is

New York City, where about of six of 414 studied murders were caused by drug

use (see attached graph) (Miller 58).

Two social problems people tie together are crime and racism. Therefore,

Drug Prohibition must play a role in racism since it plays a key role in

crime. Researchers can show that the more efficient the "War on Drugs"

gets, the more racism that incurs. Black males 15- 24 had a homicide rate

nine times higher than white males in the same group. This high rate of

black-on-black crime has two unfortunate results: first, the black victims,

of course, and second, the fear of blacks by many whites. A racist person

would point to this large discrepancy between black and white homicide rates

as some sort of an inferiority (Trebach and Inciardi 34). The sad reality

is that Prohibition has created much of this discrepancy. The analogy

between selling drugs and stealing diamonds shows why this difference might

exist. If the death penalty were applied to people who stole diamonds, it

would discourage people from stealing diamonds since the value of the

diamonds did not increase. However, if the death penalty were applied to

drug dealers, there would still be an incentive to sell drugs since the

ability to receive profit from dealing drugs would increase. The difference

would then be that the people who had very little to lose have even more

incentive to deal drugs. These people who have little to lose are

disproportionally blacks or Hispanics. These forces drive many people into

the most despised positions of society (Trebach and Inciardi 35).

Also, the drug laws in the past have been and continue to be tools of

racism. In 1930, before the government had implemented many of the tools of

Drug Prohibition, a Colorado newspaper editor wrote, "I wish I could show

you what a small marihuana cigaret [sic] can do to one of our degenerate

Spanish-speaking residents." However, more of the resentment of Mexicans

seemed to be because Mexican labor was willing to work for lower wages

thereby producing fear in Anglos over their pocketbooks. The only tool they

could use to keep Mexican labor out of the market was the drug laws (Miller

98-99). During the 1950s, many places had laws against addiction. Due to

the nature of addiction, police could and did use this as an excuse to

harass African-Americans and Hispanics (Miller 101). This similarly

happened to the Chinese and opium, a drug previously used by many Anglos

(Miller 104). One could see how this could transfer into today as many

minorities complain about selective prosecution, which is understandable

considering the racial undertones of the original Drug Prohibition.

Since the inner cities receive a far greater share of the crime and racism

involved with Drug Prohibition, it is much more difficult for a rural

citizen to understand what these regulations do to the cities, but one

aspect of the Drug Prohibition that does harm to all of us by violating

our civil liberties. A government which calls 35 million of its citizens

criminals for actions which are within the scope of civil liberties is,

thereby, violating civil liberties. Government is supposed to allow us to

do what we wish if we do not interfere with others (Evans and Berent, eds.

58). With drugs, many proponents of drug decriminalization claim that few

users when allowed to use drugs in a free market would harm anyone. The

government has also gone beyond this violation of civil liberties into the

violating the democratic process by silencing discussion of the issue. For

example, no commission has ever been held on the issue. Since the

government does not investigate the issue, this suggests that the government

wishes to remain unaware of the issue (Evans and Berent, eds. 202). Also,

many pieces of legislation such as H.R. 135 are very undemocratic. The bill

asks that "no department or agency of the United States Government shall

conduct or finance, in whole or in part, any study or research involving the

legalization of drugs" (H.R. 135). This kind of legislation banning

research of the issue is, at least, scary. If the fact that enforcement

breeds poor international relations, undue cost on public health, crime, and

racism is bad, the fact that the government is infringing our rights every

day because of Drug Prohibition is atrocious and threatens our freedom.

Drug users are not the only ones crying out for their rights in this war.

Even Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall called many polices "the drug

exception to the Constitution." For example, one drug policy is that

customs officials can detain people for no less than 24 hours and not

release them until they agree to deficate in the examiners presence, they

allow the feces to be examinated, and no traces of drug appear. These

searches can be done without reason to believe guilt even without any

evidence at all (Trebach and Inciardi 26).

Enforcing Drug Prohibition requires invasions into the home since drug use

is generally something done in the home (Trebach and Inciardi 26). In

another case in Illinois, a couple was going on vacation to Florida. An

informant told the police department that they were going to Florida to buy

drugs. The problem was that this was not the usual informant that the

police picks up from time to time. This informant was totally anonymous,

even unknown to the detectives. The conviction was upheld though most the

evidence sprouted from the anonymous, invisible informant we associated with

the Soviet Union (Trebach and Inciardi 28-29). Finally, the act of

forfeiture is extremely heinous. If, for example, two kids were smoking

marijuana on your property, the police could take all your property. Even

if no charges are brought up against you, you must go to court and prove

your complete innocence (not just reasonable doubt) to reclaim your property

from the government. In fact, half of all people who forfeit their property

never get charged (Trebach and Inciardi 32).

How Drug Prohibition has not been beneficial to society now having been

demonstrated completes the long string of problems that have stemmed from

Drug Prohibition in the realms of international relations and public health

show where the costs appeared without any consideration having been given to

benefits. In contrast, when the benefits were considered, as was the case

on the issues concerning the drug user and society, the benefits did not pan

out or were not as important in the