Drug Abuse and Legalization

The U.S. has battled against drugs long enough. The government needs to change its tactics and legalize drugs. Although drugs pose obvious life-affecting problems, legalization of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs will allow the government to control usage more effectively and allow addicts to find help more easily. Legalization will lower the crime rate and boost the economy, even though it might mean relaxed use and greater risk to children. Under legalization strict restrictions will need to be applied to keep drug use under control. Laws similar to those that define drunk driving and underage drinking and smoking today would safely restrict use. The war on drugs will never be won despite the amount of money or effort the government spends on fighting. U.S. society must legalize all types of drugs to take the first step in controlling substance abuse.
Substance abuse affects many Americans' lives. Chemicals in drugs interact with the natural chemical messenger dopamine in the brain. Narcotics in alcohol, nicotine in cigarettes, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana, and especially amphetamines stimulate the dopamine pathway to create a pleasurable feeling (Myslinski 166). Addictions to any of these drugs affect the user's state of mind and can ruin lives. Highly addictive drugs actually alter the chemistry and structure of the brain, which often results in loss of control over use (Myslinski 167). Beginning users do not anticipate their craving for the drug and expect to quit when they want. Continued use builds up a resistance to the drug, so users take more to feel the euphoria. This process grows into a heavy addiction. In adolescents about two-thirds who have ever smoked two cigarettes become addicted (Myslinski 168). Abusers often resort to stealing and selling drugs in order to fund their addictions. Thus, illegal drugs cause a much higher crime rate. In addition to the short-term problems with drug abuse, it can affect users much later in life, also. Norbert Myslinski refers to Professor Karen Bolla of Johns Hopkins University and demonstrates how cocaine affects the user's life for a long period of time:

[. . .] cocaine impairs memory, manual dexterity, and decision making for at least a month. [Karen Bolla's] study suggests damage to the brain's prefrontal cortex, leading to loss of control over consumption of the drug. A deadly spiral is set up, making it more and more difficult for the addict to quit. Continued drug abuse becomes increasingly a matter of brain damage and less a matter of weak character. (170)

Besides the physical effects of the chemical and addiction, substance abuse can also lead to long term brain damage. Ecstasy, for example, has not been fully tested for its effect on the human mind, but problems could include memory loss, sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression as well as long term brain damage (Ragavan 24). The many Americans that live with the harsh problems due to substance abuse do not have to.
The process of creating more effective rehabilitation and prevention techniques includes legalization of all drugs. Experts consider substance addiction a disease. The government should not punish "sick" patients, it should direct them towards recovery. Legalizing drugs will allow addicts to safely come forward without the risk of being criminally charged (Re-legalize 2). Anti-drug expenses totaled $6.2 billion in 1986 (Twelve Reasons 3-4) and now totals about $50 billion per year (Johnson 34). The government should stop fighting the criminal aspects of the drug war and start fighting the real problem of drugs by redirecting their funds towards addiction recovery. Drug prevention efforts in effect now have failed miserably. By age 18 fifty-five percent of students have tried an illegal drug at some point in life. By the time children reach college-age, twenty-six percent have used an illegal drug in the past month (Sager 30). Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) costs approximately $220 million and a new anti-drug advertising campaign has cost the government up to one billion dollars (Sager 30). So far there has been no proven benefit from these programs (Re-legalize 1). In fact drug use among teens has increased since 1992. A report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) showed a sixteen percent rise in drug use among twelfth graders and a ten percent rise among eighth graders from 1992 to 1997 (Winters 118). Other projects that actually work can be exploited if the government changes its angle on fighting the drug war. Projects such as "Plan USA" proposed by Sylvester L. Salcedo, who has served as an intelligence officer associated with drug law-enforcement, provide a number of points aimed at helping drug abusers and preventing drug use in children:

[. . . Plan USA would] provide treatment, on request, for our hard-core drug-addict population that now exceeds 5 million people. The Rand Corp. has found that treatment is 10 times more cost-effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocainse. Plan USA would also discourage drug use by adolescents by providing adequate funding of after-school programs and mentor programs. In addition, Plan USA would move to treat and reintegrate the more than 100,000 people imprisoned on nonviolent drug charges. (1C)

Plans like this would coexist with drug legalization and help addicts recover under a legalized environment.
Sufficient data that drug prohibition benefits America does not exist. From a logical point of view, legalization has more supportive arguments than criminalization. James Ostrowski wrote asking for specific information on the benefits of drug prohibition.. He requested information from the head of the South Florida Drug Task Force, the Education Secretary, the Assistant Secretary of State for Drug Policy, the White House drug policy adviser, and the public information directors of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the General Accounting Office, the National Institute of Justice, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No response cited any study that showed the benefits of drug prohibition (Ostrowski 2). Supposedly, if drugs were legalized, the nation would see a sharp increase in drug use. While some people might shy away from illegal drug use simply because of the risk of being charged, most make the decision not to do drugs because of the effect they have on someone's health and lifestyle. Before the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 (which outlawed drug use) passed, less than one percent of the U.S. population abused drugs (Re-legalize 3). Since then, the increase in drug abuse disputes the idea that prohibition helps keep the substance abuse rate down. Prohibition could actually trigger a direct rise in drug use because illegal acts sometimes pose the tempting idea of "forbidden fruit" that teens and adolescents often pick (Ostrowski 2-3). People in the Netherlands and Alaska, where marijuana is legal in small amounts, actually consume less marijuana than people in the continental U.S. (Ostrowski 2). This shows that drug prohibition has an opposite effect on the use of drugs.
Legalization would put drug manufacturing into the hands of reputable companies that would create safe methods of drug use. The companies would be confronted with current responsibilities including the need for health restrictions, instructions, warnings, and quality control (Twelve Reasons 4). This makes the companies accountable and liable for any health problems related to dirty needles and other health problems related to street drugs. They would have dosage recommendations and would not risk unsafe street mixes (Re-legalize 1-2). Many street drugs contain other substances and unknown amounts of the drug. Substance abusers oftentimes do not know exactly what they take. Legalization would eliminate these dangers and provide safer means of use.
Along with providing safer drug use, the transfer of drug distribution from dealers to legal companies would all but destroy crime in the U.S. Forty percent of all crime relates to drugs (Twelve Reasons 1). Drugs link to forty percent of Chicago homicides (Re-legalize 1). In British Columbia, Asian "big gangs" associated with Vietnamese crime organizations make money by distributing marijuana (O'Neill 40). Vernia Brown, a nineteen year old mother, died by accident in a drug shoot-out in the Bronx, 1988 (Ostrowski 1). These crimes would not happen if drugs become legal. Because of the lack of motive, the homicide rate would decline. Organized crime would all but disappear. The Mafia's main income comes from selling heroin; Jamaican gangs sell crack, and the Medellin Cartel sell cocaine. These organizations would lose billions (Twelve Reasons 4). Of course, this would also have negative effects on world economy. Many countries' economy supports large illegal industries. Seven thousand homes in Vancouver grow marijuana and export it to the U.S. creating an almost $3.5 billion industry which could be British Columbia's third-largest industry (O'Neill 40). Mr. Finlayson, the vice president of Vancouver's business council policy, promotes the industry for the good of the country's economy:

Vancouver is an expensive place to live, and B.C. experienced a real decline in total income for most of the '90s and yet there is a kind of sheen of prosperity that one sees here which is greater than you'd anticipate. [The only explanation for this is that] an enormous amount of money is being spewed about and generated by drugs. [. . .] It's a positive thing for the local marketplace in a narrow economic sense. (O'Neill 40)

U.S. legalization will greatly affect the worldwide economy. National economies such as this could collapse, but more importantly, so will the major, worldwide crime organizations.
Legalization will solve many small problems within the U.S. Police forces will be freed to focus on more important safety issues of American citizens, rather than enforce drug matters (Twelve Reasons 2). Because of the decreased crime rate, officers will focus on important issues such as homicide and domestic disputes. They will not worry about underground drug deals and dealer shoot-outs. The lowered crime rate will free the strain on the court system and ease prison overcrowding (Twelve Reasons 2-3). Many trials occur due to drug-related cases. Out of the thirty thousand federal prisoners, almost ten thousand of these were jailed because of drug law violations (Twelve Reasons 2). Although legalization solves many problems, it creates need for tighter governmental control of substance use.
Laws and regulations need to be passed in order for legalization to be controlled. Although Gary E. Johnson, the governor of New Mexico promotes legalization, he holds a specific point of view:

Sometimes people say to me, "Governor, I am absolutely opposed to your stand on drugs." I respond by asking them, "You're for drugs, you want to see our kids on drugs?" Let me make something clear. I'm not pro-drug. I'm against drugs. Don't do drugs. Drugs are a real handicap. (34)

The governor emphasizes the need for restrictions on drug use. Laws need to address a legal age to start, selling to minors, and driving while under the influence of mind-altering substances. These laws should relate to the current laws passed on tobacco and alcohol use. These restrictions will obviously demand fine-tuning if drugs are legalized, but in the end, these regulations could make the difference between a successful legalization scenario and an unsuccessful one.
The U.S. government needs to take action and effectively work towards winning the American drug war. Legalization instigates the need for strict regulation, but if managed correctly, it could help millions of lives controlled by substance addiction. Many economic, social, and civil benefits exist under legalization. These benefits could help the U.S. prosper and decrease the crime rate significantly. The government should begin to take these arguments seriously and make a decision for the good of the American people.

- Ben "TinMan" Johns
[email protected]

Mail

3/21/01:
I just read your article which I found very interesting. I agree with a lot of what you say. I am a grown adult with children who have been in trouble with the law for pot. My son was arrested and his life has been ruined. He can't get a decent job or put it behind him since most employers will not will hire you with a drug conviction. The military will not even take you. They humiliate individuals for their weakness which I believe is no different from drinking alcohol for most. I know this is happening to many other families. Instead of jail why don't they put people in rehab. Do you know why? Because you have to have money and insurance in this country. Most people if they get arrested for drugs end up losing their jobs, get slapped with fines and jail time. The government would rather put them in jail and make them real criminals than to give them counseling or rehab. I think the way they are fighting drugs is destroying people's lives. I read in a college application if you have a drug conviction you can't get a Pell Grant. Now if someone is getting out of prison you would think that this country would want them to go to college and make something of themselves. The amazing thing is you can just move here from a foreign country where you probably smoked pot half your life and grew up with it and can apply for financial aid and get it. I know this to be true. I work with a 21 year old who is not a citizen here and told me he grew up with pot in his country he smoked it was not a big deal. He goes to college free. Yet some poor American kid gets caught with pot and convicted cannot get a dime to help with school. And what do they think a person is going to do after they have had their reputation destroyed, and make people afraid of them by writing them up in the paper like some big criminal. The crime was against themselves not others. All this talk about civil rights in this country, people who get arrested for drugs have no rights at all. I agree with you; the police should be solving real crimes. I myself do not do drugs but I definitely agree that all this is doing is giving all our youth criminal records and destroying their lives more than the drugs most likely will ever do. I feel better writing this because I know you understand. Thanks for letting me blow off steam. Hopefully, someday they will get a clue to what a mess they are making.
Sincerely,
Nora

Thanks to all of you who took the time to email me and share your opinions.
Webmasters, if you have a site related to drug legalization or drug abuse, please join my Drug Abuse and Legalization Site Ring.

Works Cited

Myslinski, Norbert R. "Addiction's Ugly Face." World & I. Dec. 1999. SIRS Researcher fall 2000. CD-ROM. SIRS Mandarin, Inc.

Ragavan, Chitra, and Jeff Glasser. "The Danger of Being Young, Hip, and High." U.S. News & World Report. 13 Dec. 1999. SIRS Researcher Fall 2000. CD-ROM. SIRS Mandarin, Inc.

Re-legalize Drugs. 2000. Chicago. 27 Nov. 2000. 'http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/abuse.html'.

"Twelve Reasons to Legalize Drugs." Drug Sense. 28 Nov. 2000. 'http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/12reason.html'.

Johnson, Gary E. "The Case for Drug Legalization." World & I. Feb. 2000. SIRS Researcher Fall 2000. CD-ROM. SIRS Mandarin, Inc.

Sager, Ryan H. "The Drug War: Teach Them Well." National Review May 2000: 30+.

Winters, Ken C. "Kids and Drugs." Corrections Today Oct. 1998: 188+.

Salcedo, Sylvester L. "Drug Warrior Calls for Peace." Gazette-Mail 2 Apr. 2000: 1C+.

Cato Policy. James Ostrowski. May 1989. New York County Lawyer Association Committee on Law Reform. 9 Dec. 2000. 'http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121es.html'.

O'Neill, Terry. "Pot of Gold." Report Newsmagazine. April 10, 2000. SIRS Researcher Fall 2000. CD-ROM. SIRS Mandarin, Inc.

Bibliography

Download Microsoft Word 97 Document (Document and Works Cited)
Download Microsoft Word 97 Bibliography (Bibliography Only)

	There Have Been		Visits Since 1/3/01.
	The Drug Abuse And Legalization SiteRing

This site makes use of Cascading Style Sheets and Javascript 1.1

December 2000/2001 | Ben "TinMan" Johns

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws