The dawn of the twenty first century has ushered in a new age of optimism and wonder. Despite the proclamations of television, all is not in well in our part of the world. Our societies have succumbed to the modern holy war on drugs. Being fought against our own citizens and citizens abroad, an international effort to eradicate drug production and use has undoubtedly failed leaving in its wake social unrest and political chaos. Assault, property crime, racial and economic marginalization, murder, corruption and many other undesirable things are burning through society fueled by the drug war's cold and inhuman policies. In addition to these problems there are the initial problems that drug users incur on themselves and society; the same ones the drug war was supposed to eliminate. Prohibition is an old idea that is not practically attainable in a democratic society that values individual rights. Experiments with the prohibition of alcohol failed miserably and cost many people their lives. If the justification behind the drug war is human health and wellbeing, as governments would have us believe, then refraining from using the police to murder and spy on our citizens would be a good start to solving the problem. A form of regulated legalization of drugs would be a tolerant middle ground that recognizes the inevitability of drug use and strives to make it as safe as possible. Regulating the market for drugs and researching new psychoactives would lead to a safer drug experience. Legalizing would eliminate the need for an invasive and brutal police force and halt the slow decline of our civil rights and liberties. With the strain of drug related policing removed, serious crimes could be given the resources they deserve. Organized crime would lose its foothold in the world economy along with its influence and power. It is for these reasons and others that the we must wake up and reject the 'drug free' utopia that we are being force fed and speculate objectively about a society with realistic policies based on the facts, not vague moral convictions.
An immediate effect of a legalized drug market would be increased safety for drug users. Adulterated drugs off the black market are responsible many unnecessary deaths. (www.dancesafe.org) Drugs created in clean environments subject to inspection and quality control would be far superior to those created in clandestine labs who's operators have little or lose by cutting corners. Current laws do not differentiate between those who produce a drug properly and those who attempt synthesis in their bathtubs leaving almost no room for safety concerns to get in the way of profits. A regulated drug market would provide drug users with consistent doses, lowering the likelihood of overdose with some drugs. Clear labeling, instructions, and warnings present in a legalized system would result in safer usage. It is known, for instance, that other, more dangerous drugs, have caused many of the deaths linked to ecstasy. (www.csdp.org/factbook/ecstasy.htm) In the future, such scenarios can be virtually eliminated. Another safety issue surrounding drug usage is the spread of diseases, such as AIDS, through injection drug use. According to a study in 1996 "Drug paraphernalia laws in 47 U.S. states make it illegal for injection drug users to posses syringes". (www.csdp.org/factbook/syringee.htm) This law effectively bans needle exchange programs (since they would be giving needles to drug users who are banned from having them). The study concluded that access to clean needles would reduce blood borne viruses in injection drug users. The legalization of drugs would also allow profitable research by pharmaceutical companies into safer drugs that produce similar psychoactive effects to the current illegal ones. New drugs could possibly decrease the negative health effects of drugs reducing the overall harm caused by current unhealthy drug use. (www.opiods.com) The safety gap between a legalized drug market and the black market is so enormous that it's amazing it's overlooked by policy makers who continue, with their arrogance, to push the drug market and its users further underground. It is apparent that the original purpose of promoting human health and wellbeing has been compromised by policy makers' desire to wield their growing power to alienate those whom they're supposed to be helping.
We live in a democratic society that is supposed to value free speech and individual rights. Citizen's civil rights are rapidly dissolving in favor of police investigative powers. Of course, the problem lies in the fact that in consensual crimes, such as drug usage, neither party has any complaint and so it is up to the police to seek out (through lawful means) and arrest those guilty. As a result, the power to search people and property after a minimal threshold of suspicions has been cited as necessary part of law enforcement protocol. Activities, such as phone tapping, were considered "dangerous and unwarranted practice[s]" by the legal authorities of the alcohol prohibition era. (www.ottawacitizen.com) There was even a time when undercover police officers selling drugs to would-be buyers was called entrapment. Times have changed, however, and Supreme Court judges have, over the years, cleverly ruled constitutional exemptions for the police in order to allow drug investigations to go on unhampered. (www.ottawacitizen.com) At the same time police forces are arming themselves to combat the superior armament of criminal organizations that use drug dealing to generate profits. In America today, 89% of all police departments have paramilitary units. Although the most common use is serving drug related warrants, more than 20% of police departments now also use these units to patrol urban areas. (www.csdp.org/factbook/military) This armament of police should be extremely frightening to people as war in the literal sense can now being mobilized against the people. Given the proper suspicion a swat team could be breaking down your door and pointing guns at your family. While this may seem like an unlikely event, power corrupts, and an institution with lax guidelines and blind public trust is an accident waiting to happen. Another, perhaps subtler, degradation of civil rights due to the drug war is corporate drug testing. This practice is unfair and somewhat pointless for several reasons. First, a positive drug test doesn't tell the employer whether the employee has used drugs on the job or how often they use drugs, which really makes the conclusion irrelevant for any practical analysis of productivity. As well, it has been found that poor performance is most often not drug or alcohol related anyway, but rather "severe fatigue and illness". It's not surprising then that a study found "drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity". One company put the cost of finding a positive drug test result at $20,000, which is hardly an economical price to locate a person who may not even be performing less than other employees. (www.csdp.org/factbook/drugtest.htm) Civil rights loss, through increased intrusion into our lives is being pioneered by the war on drugs. Once used in only the direst of circumstances, many invasive investigation procedures are now routinely practiced by our police forces. Removing the justification for further invasion into our personal affairs by power hungry institutions that once respected the constitution is a compelling reason to legalize drugs.
Our legal system was certainly not conceived with today's drug laws in mind. Considering the widespread use of drugs and the number of people who are caught offending drug laws it seems ridiculous to even consider having such laws in the first place. Over half the prisoners in federal U.S. jails were convicted for drug related crimes. (www.csdp.org/factbook/prison.htm) Prison populations incur an enormous financial cost on society, but as long as drug laws remain people will continue to be needlessly incarcerated. Canada has reacted by minimizing administrative requirements involving marijuana charges (the most common of drug offences) while America has formed a separate court system for drugs all together that attempts to focus less on incarceration. (www.csdp.org/factbook/drugcour.htm) Both solutions are not complete and have not made significant changes to the paralysis drug related charges have belabored the justice system with. While courts are wasting time on drug cases real criminal cases are obviously getting less attention than they deserve. Similarly large portions of police and law enforcement agencies have been diverted specifically to narcotics investigation and enforcement. If a fraction of the funds wasted on enforcement were applied to drug treatment, which is at least 10 times more effective at reducing the use of certain drugs (including cocaine) than jail, the results would seem to satisfy the overall mandate of the war on drugs better than any other method. (www.cspd.org/factbook/treatmen.htm) Of course, if drugs weren't illegal in the first place and treatment was made available for addicts the negative aspects of certain drug use could be kept to a minimum, and, primarily, the justice system would be freed to do its job: convicting the real criminals. (www.erowid.org/psychoactives/policy/policy_writing1.shtml)
Perhaps the most compelling argument to legalize drugs is to shatter the financial basis of international organized crime. No other commodity is cheaper to produce and smuggle with a high payoff than illegal narcotics. Thousands of tons of drugs are produced every year funding the agendas of crime organizations worldwide. Some estimates put profits for illegal drugs at 400 billion dollars per year, which is approximately 8 percent of the total world economy. (www.csdp.org/factbook/economi.htm) This is especially disconcerting when you consider that organized criminals usually aren't looking out for the well being of individuals or countries. This amount of money is so huge that some criminal organizations could physically outgun the militaries of the countries they're based in if they needed to! The ongoing war between the Colombian government and narcotics producers is evidence enough of this. Fortunately, bribing officials is usually a much cheaper and less bloody method of attaining the same goal. An estimated 40% of drug profits are spent on bribing officials.(www.ottawacitizen.org) In order for the drug trade to continue as it has it is necessary for officials in countries involved to be bribed somewhere along the way. While not as notorious as Mexico and Columbia, the governments of Canada and the United States have undoubtedly been bribed at certain levels. The commissioner of the RCMP has even suggested that "criminal organizations target the destabilization of our parliamentary system". (www.ottawacitizen.org) Indeed, there is a lot of source-less hearsay which would suggest that the same organizations that are involved with investigating and enforcing narcotic laws are, in fact, proponents and organizers of the sale and distribution of narcotics themselves. Obviously such sources would be silenced fairly quickly given the powers available to the drug investigating machine. Such conclusions can be assumed, however, considering the probable corruption of any institution with near absolute power. (www.erowid.org/.../policy_writing5.shtml & www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-2/html) The bottom line remains, however. If drugs were no longer illegal, they would no longer produce the same easy money for international organized crime who would subsequently become less powerful.
The legalization of drugs has never been more necessary. As the world rages on around us we are told that the western countries are more civilized more peaceful and on the road to a drug free utopia. It is obvious that authorities have used the vision of civility and peace as a method to sell the public on the wonders of a drug free world, while their real agendas are probably very different. Policies exist in our countries that not only contradict our basic civil rights principles but are also moving us closer and closer to police states. International drug policies are ridiculous. Prohibition now causes far more harm than the drug abuse itself. Legalizing would introduce quality control. It would make questionable police investigative practices unjustified and stop our civil rights and liberties from sliding further into oblivion. It would remove the burden drug charges place on our legal system allowing it to concentrate more on "real" crime. Legalization is the only method we have to stop organized crime before it further corrupts and destabilizes the world's governments. Legalization is not a moral dilemma or choice that society should make based on whether it thinks certain states of consciousness or physiology are acceptable. To preserve democracy and freedom one must be ready to allow people to harm themselves with drugs if the only alternative is watch as corruption and deceit slowly conquer our countries that once claimed to be free.
My mother knew sports were the most important thing in my life. She tried to use my love of sports to keep me away from drugs. She told me drugs would keep me from performing at my best when I played football.
But I had been reading the sports page since I was a little kid. I knew some of the best athletes in America were using drugs. Guys who could run a hundred yards in less than ten seconds were using drugs. They were doing great. Drugs weren’t hurting their performance. So I didn’t pay any attention to my mother’s warnings, and I started using drugs when I was fifteen (qtd. in Perkins and McMurtrie-Perkins 25-26).
On the weekends, there is at least one party planned. Teens will find someway, no matter what to get either drunk or high. Many will lie, steal, or cheat so they can use. Some teens even spend an entire day trying to obtain their drugs of choice. Although many teens don’t use drugs because it is unacceptable, there is an increase in drug use among teens today, because sports athletes, movies, and music make it appear acceptable.
It is true, of course, that athletes will and do get reprimanded for the use of drugs, but many still run the risk, and don’t get caught. They either use substances that are illegal in the sport or on the street. Steroids were first used by the Germans in World War II, then the Soviets started using them in sports in the late 1940’s(Cox). It seems that if an athlete gets caught with drugs they receive more publicity, young people see this and think that if they do drugs too then they will get more attention.
Furthermore, Many young people consider athletes, actors, actresses, and musicians as role models. They try to model their lives after them, this, many times includes the celebrity’s drug use if they have used before. There are many biographies on television that deal with a celebrity and their drug use. Young people see these bios and think that drug use is just a part of growing up and that they will have to do it sometime so why not get it out of the way (Duncan).
Undoubtedly, many actors and actresses have been involved in anti-drug campaigns; still many have been caught or confessed using drugs. They also play many roles in movies and shows in which they use drugs, granted older people know that they are only playing a role, but many younger viewers don’t. When asked if they knew whom Cheech and Chong were a member of the audience responded by saying that they were funny people that made funny movies. The problem with their movies is that they make smoking marijuana look funny, too (Perkins and McMurtrie-Perkins 27).
Most important of all, many musicians have written or performed songs that have encouraged drug use. Some musicians even encourage drug use through their actions. If you watched the MTV Video Music Awards this year, you would have witnessed one of the many things that musicians do to promote drug use. Eminem was on stage, as he “searched” for his acceptance speech; little white pills fell out of his pants. Many officials reported that the pills might have been his favorite drug, ecstasy. Eminem also has a track on his recent album that talks solely about drug use.
To help curb the increase in drug use the government needs to have broader censorship of songs and movies. Have more celebrities involved in anti-drug campaigns, closer screening and harsher penalties for those athletes, actors, actresses, and musicians caught with drugs. But most importantly, better education on the effects of illegal substances on the body.
Because of the roles that sports, movies, and music play in young people’s lives today, the drug use in this country has increased in the past few years. If something isn’t done, then the increase will continue. The government will have to devote more time, effort, and money to control the drugs. If the government does something while the majority doesn’t use drugs, then they will be a lot more successful then if they wait for the drug problem to get out of control.
1 Address the real issues
For too long policy makers have used prohibition as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the social and economic factors that lead people to use drugs. Most illegal and legal drug use is recreational. Poverty and despair are at the root of most problematic drug use and it is only by addressing these underlying causes that we can hope to significantly decrease the number of problematic users.
2 Eliminate the criminal market place
The market for drugs is demand-led and millions of people demand illegal drugs. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves. The profits are worth billions of pounds. Legalisation forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves them of income and enables us to regulate and control the market (i.e. prescription, licensing, laws on sales to minors, advertising regulations etc.)
3 Massively reduce crime
The price of illegal drugs is determined by a demand-led, unregulated market. Using illegal drugs is very expensive. This means that some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality
Legalisation would enable us to regulate the market, determine a much lower price and remove users need to raise funds through crime. Our legal system would be freed up and our prison population dramatically reduced, saving billions. Because of the low price, cigarette smokers do not have to steal to support their habits. There is also no violence associated with the legal tobacco market.
4 Drug users are a majority
Recent research shows that nearly half of all 15-16 year olds have used an illegal drug. Up to one and a half million people use ecstasy every weekend. Amongst young people, illegal drug use is seen as normal. Intensifying the 'war on drugs' is not reducing demand. In Holland, where cannabis laws are far less harsh, drug usage is amongst the lowest in Europe.
Legalisation accepts that drug use is normal and that it is a social issue, not a criminal justice one. How we deal with it is up to all of us to decide.
In 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offences and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work.
5 Provide access to truthful information and education
A wealth of disinformation about drugs and drug use is given to us by ignorant and prejudiced policy-makers and media who peddle myths upon lies for their own ends. This creates many of the risks and dangers associated with drug use.
Legalisation would help us to disseminate open, honest and truthful information to users and non-users to help them to make decisions about whether and how to use. We could begin research again on presently illicit drugs to discover all their uses and effects - both positive and negative.
6 Make all drug use safer
Prohibition has led to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of drug users. Countries that operate ultra-prohibitionist policies have very high rates of HIV infection amongst injecting users. Hepatitis C rates amongst users in the UK are increasing substantially.
In the UK in the '80's clean needles for injecting users and safer sex education for young people were made available in response to fears of HIV. Harm reduction policies are in direct opposition to prohibitionist laws.
7 Restore our rights and responsibilities
Prohibition unnecessarily criminalises millions of otherwise law-abiding people. It removes the responsibility for distribution of drugs from policy makers and hands it over to unregulated, sometimes violent dealers.
Legalisation restores our right to use drugs responsibly to change the way we think and feel. It enables controls and regulations to be put in place to protect the vulnerable.
8 Race and Drugs
Black people are over ten times more likely to be imprisoned for drug offences than whites. Arrests for drug offences are notoriously discretionary allowing enforcement to easily target a particular ethnic group. Prohibition has fostered this stereotyping of black people.
Legalisation removes a whole set of laws that are used to disproportionately bring black people into contact with the criminal justice system. It would help to redress the over representation of black drug offenders in prison.
9 Global Implications
The illegal drugs market makes up 8% of all world trade (around £300 billion a year). Whole countries are run under the corrupting influence of drug cartels. Prohibition also enables developed countries to wield vast political power over producer nations under the auspices of drug control programmes.
Legalisation returns lost revenue to the legitimate taxed economy and removes some of the high-level corruption. It also removes a tool of political interference by foreign countries against producer nations.
10 Prohibition doesn't work
There is no evidence to show that prohibition is succeeding. The question we must ask ourselves is, "What are the benefits of criminalising any drug?" If, after examining all the available evidence, we find that the costs outweigh the benefits, then we must seek an alternative policy.
Legalisation is not a cure-all but it does allow us to address many of the problems associated with drug use, and those created by prohibition. The time has come for an effective and pragmatic drug policy.
