The Effective Alternative: Why Drugs Should be Legalized
In hopes of reducing society's drug use, western governments have put immense effort towards the war on drugs'. Unfortunately, this immense effort has shown discouraging results. Even Jane Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Policy admits, "there has been no direct effect on either the price or the availability of [illegal drugs]" (Boaz). There must be an alternative to the failing and costly prohibition. That alternative is the legalization of drugs. Drug legalization would benefit Britain by boosting the economy; regulating drug culture by increasing safety and decreasing violence; and by alleviating the moral restraints imposed by the government, therefore upholding liberal rights of British citizens.
Britain's economy would benefit from taking control of the drug market through legalization. Currently, governments are spending billions to stop drug use (Becker). This attempt is futile, as we are simply seeing more arrests instead of less drug activity. In 1996, 59.6% of federal prisoners in the United States were imprisoned on drug related charges (Boaz). These prisoners are costing massive sums for less than massive crimes. Should drugs be legalized, billions could be saved annually, solely because governments would no longer be spending useless dollars to keep drug offenders in jail.
Legalization would not only save money, but would also boost the economy through taxation. The war on drugs' has created more risk in drug dealing, which makes drug prices swell (Becker). The government assumes that these price increases will generate a decrease in consumption. Unfortunately, addicted users find drugs to be a necessity, not a luxury, and economically, all necessities will be consumed despite any increase in price. In casual users, a 10% increase in drug prices has shown a 5% decrease in drug consumption. However, because of inflation, drug spending actually increases 5% for every 10% price raise (Becker). So although drug consumption is lessening ever so slightly, more money is being spent. Analyzing the aforementioned statistic shows that drug prices would have to be inflated by 200% to significantly reduce drug consumption, which would mean a huge increase in money spent on drugs. Alternatively, if drugs were legalized, a 200% tax on drugs would give the same decrease in consumption and the same increase in spending; however, governments would finally be making billions from the drug market, instead of spending billions trying to suppress it.
In addition to taking money away from underground drug markets, legalization would make drug culture safer. Violence associated with drug exchanges would lessen and the safety of drug use would improve. Most drug violence occurs in the exchange of drugs, either between sellers and buyers, or between rival dealers (Boaz). When drug deals become problematic, disputes are solved with violence. In the legal world, we see similar problems being settled in court, a method that the drug world would adopt with legalization, leading to less drug violence and safer atmospheres in areas normally associated with illegal drug sales.
Drug safety does not refer only to violence. Many users accidentally purchase low quality drugs that are not as pure a substance, which can lead to overdosing or death. Others will use contaminated needles, contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS. With legalization, drug production would be controlled for safer drug use. Governments could implement drug safety tests and set legal restraints on product quality. Furthermore, clean needles could be sold at local stores to reduce the use of contaminated needles. In Hong Kong, clean needles are available in drug stores, and as of 1987, there have been no reported cases of AIDS from contaminated needles (Cussen). British Columbia recently opened the first Safe Injection Site, a place to inject drugs safely that has already shown a decrease in contaminated needle usage ("Safe drug-injection sites reduce HIV spread"). This forward move is only the first step. With drug legalization, the safety of drug use would continue to increase, and drug overdoses, deaths, and the spread of HIV/AIDS through contaminated needles would become a faint memory in society's mind.
Most importantly, besides stifling the economy and causing unnecessary violence, prohibition allows the government to decide what society considers morally right. Consenting adults should be able to decide what they deem morally acceptable. Some may think that legalization means condoning drug use, but this is not the case. Governments do not condone smoking, nor do they encourage irresponsible alcohol consumption. The same views that apply to tobacco and alcohol would apply to drugs. Legalization would mean taking the liberalist view to give people the opportunity to do as they choose, providing it does not harm others. Since drug use harms only oneself, the option should be left to the user (Smith). Some might argue that drug use indirectly affects those close to the user. They argue that people can become less fit parents, or that employees become incompetent (Smith). This argument is weak, as it can apply to alcohol, unhealthy eating habits, or even natural demeanor. It is neither illegal to consume alcohol, nor is it illegal to be unhealthy or a bad parent.
Additionally, the choices that people make are not always based on legalities. Drug users who become unfit citizens on drugs are most likely using drugs despite legalities. Similarly, unfit citizens, who are not using drugs, are most likely unfit citizens despite legalities. The decision to be one way or another should be left to each person to make, not the government. The government already has too much control in manipulating society's morals. Should we allow this to continue, further rights could be taken away (Smith). Would citizens allow the outlaw of alcohol, animal products, or birth control? What if the government took even further moral control, placing bans on specific religions? Some might say that governments will never go to these extremes, but are governments not trying to legally control sexual rights by banning gay marriage? Taking away the choice to use drugs lies on the same level as these infringements. Legalizing drugs does not mean that the government would endorse drug use, it would mean that decisions could be left up to each citizen, without fearing severe penalties based on morals imposed by the government.
In a world where personal views are slowly assimilating, saying yes to drug legalization seems to be a faux pas. However, legalization shows many benefits, both economically and socially. Legalizing drugs may not necessarily reduce society's use of illegal substances; however, actions towards reducing drug use could be focused and controlled once the strain of dealing with drug addicts as criminal offenders has been lifted. If the main focus of drug prohibition is to reduce drug use in society, why has the government dismissed an effective alternative in favour of crude punishment?
Works Cited
Becker, Gary. "The Failure of the War on Drugs." The Becker-Posner Blog. 20 March
2005. 11 March 2008.
< http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/t he_failure_of.html >.
Boaz, David. "Drug Legalization, Criminalization, and Harm Reduction." Cato Institute.
16 June 1999. 11 March 2008.
< http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dbz061699.html >.
Cussen, Meaghan. "Legalize Drugs Now!". American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, The. July 2000. FindArticles.com. 24 Mar. 2008.
< http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_3_59/ ai_65348069 >.
"Safe drug-injection sites reduce HIV spread." CTV Canadian Press. 18 March 2005. 13
March 2008.
< http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/ 1111154097459_46/ >.
Smith, Paul. "Drugs, Morality and the Law". Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 19,
No.3. (2002). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.