Politics, News & Issues >
Drug Laws & Prevention
RSS FeedIs there a more efficient and ethical way to reduce drug abuse in the US than by conducting a war on drugs?
Results so far:
Votes are still being tallied.
Join the Debate now.
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOne of the largest problems with our current efforts to reduce drug use is that we look at drugs as something wholly different from what they are. Drugs are not a sentient force that can be fought, or a corrupting demon that needs exorcism, drugs are a commodity that is bought and sold much the same way corn is. In order to reduce the use of drugs in this country, we must treat it as we would treat any other market force.
For one, attacking the supply of drugs, specifically our policy of spraying fields, is not an effective measure, and it is certainly a costly one. It hurts the farmers who grow drugs, generally out of desperation more than greed. It hurts the country where we spray them, by inciting protests against our policies. It hurts our country too by using large amounts of money in very ineffective ways. We're looking at drugs as something that can be fought or killed, we should look at it as a market trend to be controlled.
The only way to reduce the use of drugs is to reduce the demand of drugs. Economics teaches that the only way you'll ever see a drop in supply is by reducing demand to the point that there is a surplus of supply. The best way to reduce demand is to target those who consume the most drugs, the addicts. Currently, the US does not have a large enough program for treating addicts as people suffering from an addiction instead of criminals to be punished. While legalization of drugs is perhaps not the answer, making those who come forward capable of getting help without being prosecuted as criminals is an important step forward.
If addicts knew that, by going to any local hospital, they would be guaranteed treatment that would wean them off drugs, in addition to job training skills that would get them back on their feet, many would be able to kick their habit without the need for searching them out. Most addicts don't like living in squalor, looking for their next fix. By giving addicts an alternative that is not jail, we create a situation where it makes much more sense to come forward, admit addiction, and get help in a way that is non-coercive and not a monetary hardship. Be getting the hardcore addicts off the streets, we can greatly reduce the demand for drugs, while, simultaneously lifting those in hardcore addiction out of poverty by providing them job training and job placement.
Reducing the demand is the only way to reduce the use of drugs. Demand arises from desperation, depression, poverty and addiction. Only be treating these societal ills can we ever hope to make our nation's gross drug abuse problem less prevelant.
Learn more about this author, Bryan Jennings.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
No
"There are always alternatives to war." That is absolutely true. However, it is sad that some people think simply surrendering to the enemy is one of those acceptable alternatives.
Oh, but wait. Some say this is just a "pretend war" with no real enemy. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, almost 1.5 million people find themselves in some type of emergency room each year because of illicit drug abuse or misuse. That is just the number of people lucky enough to make it to the emergency room. It does not include those who die either alone or surrounded by other people not cognizant of the need for that person to go to an emergency because they also are under the influence of illicit drugs. There are hundreds of thousands drug-related suicide attempts each year due to the overwhelming incidents of depression associated with the use and abuse of these illicit drugs. If there is no enemy in this war on drugs, then will someone please tell the family and friends of these victims exactly what the cause of their suffering is? Certainly the blame should fall partially on the user, but if drug use was something that could be totally controlled by the user, it wouldn't be called an "addiction." Why would we want to legalize illicit drug use and make it even easier for people to fall victim to this beast?
Ah, yes. That's right. Drug trafficking is a profitable business. Finally, the real reason steps forwards. If there is money to be made, then surely we should dive in head first, sleeves rolled up (after all, that makes it just that much easier to see where to put the needle), and start making that all-mighty dollar. Just imagine the massive influx of money into the economy! But who will step forward to regulate this cash cow?
"Hi. We're from the government, and we're here to help." Massive government regulation is always the key to success. That is why Social Security is such an efficient program and why our country operates on an annual surplus. The previous two sentences are absolutely true, except for the fact that they aren't. Do we really want the government involved in drug trafficking? Pick up a history book sometime and read about how that turned out for other countries through the years. Instead of the sketchy guy on the corner being the heavy hand behind the flow and control of illicit drugs, by all means, put that power, control, and responsibility in the hands of the government.
As for the effects on the economy, what about the negative effects? There is a reason we always hear about someone falling into drugs and losing everything they have, including jobs and families, yet we never really hear about the crack addict who is holding down a full-time job. Unless, of course, we start counting being a crack dealer as a full-time job. Also, consider the "plus" championed by proponents of the legalization and regulation of illicit drugs that by doing so we offer "the ability to recover faster from addictions with proper treatment." We can't simply tell an addict, "Good luck getting over your addiction." It takes the implementation of programs and help groups. Not only are we looking at the costs of regulation, but now we must deal with the costs of the effects. Now, where did that massive influx of money go to?
If we were to simply stop fighting the "instinctive nature in man," then we would have no need for a criminal code at all. Legalize it all. Embrace the weaknesses. After all, hasn't doing so with tobacco and alcohol cut down on instances of lung cancer and alcohol-related abuse and deaths?
Learn more about this author, Vance Mcbrayer.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Drug Laws & Prevention
- Is there an underlying culture of racism in the war on drugs?
- Should we create policies that treat drug abuse as a health problem rather than a crime problem?
- Should a Constitutional amendment have been required to prohibit today's illicit drugs?
- The continued epidemic of drug use means we've lost the war on drugs
- Should the US government be in the business of telling doctors what they can prescribe to their patients?
