Such An Issue Stirs Up Moral And Religious Beliefs

.. ish have been freely available for more than 17 years. The only drug that causes traffic fatalities and violence in Holland is the same one that causes these problems here–alcohol. Over a 17-year period in Holland, during which possession and use of hard drugs have been treated under 22 years of age who use heroin or cocaine has dropped from 15 percent to less than three percent. (Perrine, p.12) In Holland, a Dutch reformed parish operate a methadone dispensary and a needle exchange. There are designated areas where drugs can be used, and permitting such areas is controversial, even in tolerant Holland.

Drug legalization in England and Holland has had mixed results. While there has been a slight increase in drug use in those countries, the number of crimes associated with drugs has decreased. However disagreeable, the visible presence of junkies in countries like England and Holland plays its part. Dutch adolescents have no problem seeing that this is hardly a glamorous and exciting life-style and that it does not even provide much pleasure. Reality, even disagreeable reality, is remarkably educational; and the attempt to legislate reality out of existence is remarkably counterproductive. (Perrine, p.12) In the U.S. there were eleven states that decriminalized the personal use of marijuana. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse(1992), there was no increase in its use in those states.(Riga, p.7) Antidrug supporters argue that corollations cannot be made between the United States and other countries; however, the way in which people conduct themselves and how society responds to this is very similar around the world.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Heightened awareness of the destructiveness of drugs, and in self-pride programs for society’s “have nots.” The United States has cut back drastically on its alcohol and tobacco consumption are dangerous. The same thing must be done for other drugs. Pragmatically, the legal and controlled sale of drugs would not only reduce crime but channel valuable resources into treatment.(Riga, p.7) With the treatment of drugs as a medical problem, we can then and only then focus on the real problem: people and adulteration of supplies of drugs. Without some system of control, it is argued, that there is no way to guarantee the purity or strength of any given cannabis preparation. Wide variations in THC(delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) concentration could have deleterious effects on users. Inexperienced smokers, accustomed to lowgrade domestic pot, could be adversely affected by the unexpected introduction of highpotency Colombian or Jamaican supplies.(Schroeder, p.54) Today’s drug consumer literally does not know what he is buying.

The drugs are so valuable that the sellers have an incentive to “cut” or dilute the product with foreign substances that look like the real thing. Most street heroin is only three to six percent pure; street cocaine ten to fifteen percent. Since purity varies greatly, consumers can produce the desired effects. If a person percent heroin and take a five percent dose, suddenly he has nearly doubled his open market would face different incentives than pushers. They rely on name brand recognition to build market share, and on incentive to provide a product of uniform quality; killing customers or losing them to competitors is not a proven way to success. (Pragmatist, p.3) With major how drugs should be made and what they should be cut with dangerous approach may be taken.

As well be the schism that has been created in the American society. Prohibition has set generation against generation, lawenforcement officials against users, and the system of criminal justice against millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The effect of prohibition has not been a decreased marijuana consumption–statistics show that the opposite is true. Rather, prohibition has bred disrespect for the law and the institutions of government, and many have argued that that is too high a price to pay for even a successful program.(Schroeder, p.55) A loss of respect for governmental agencies can be seen as one terrible event that has occurred within America. Plans that would breed and boost respect for these agencies should be desired and sought after. As the prohibition of drugs yearly is an unnecessary and overwhelming figure.

The total annual cost of the drug war, are about $100 billion dollars annually.(Duke, p.3) For instance, the Air Force spent $3.3 million on drug interdiction, using sophisticated AWACS surveillance planes, over a 15 month period ending in 1987. The grand total of drug seizures from thatof the Coast Guard and Navy, sailing for 2,500 ship days at a cost of $40 million, resulted in the seizure of a mere 20 drug-carrying vessels.(Wink, p.1) They were not enough, domestic production of marijuana continues to increase. It is the largest cash crop in ten states and second largest in the nation, second only to corn. Revenues from drug trafficking in Miami, Florida, are greater than those from tourism, exports, health care, and all other legitimate businesses combined.(Wink, p.2) They have a lower cost than throwing people in prison. It costs $52,000 a year to detain someone at Riker’s Island. However, a years stay at Phoenix House in New York, for example, costs $15,000.(Yoffe, p.1) If it is not already obvious, the way in which the government goes about it’s drug war is inoperative.

Money that is spent is a waste; education and treatment. If politicians cannot see this, than we are losing the drug war in our policies and in the minds of our”greatest” lawmakers, not on the streets. As I concluded that the prohibition of drugs criminalised users, forced them into contact with professional criminals, tempted entrepreneurial young people from impoverished backgrounds into a lucrative criminal life, encouraged gang warfare, resulted in people taking impure mixtures in often dangerous methods, and created heavy policing costs. It is, in short, not drug abuse itself which creates the most havoc, but the crime resulting from other Western governments, to contemplate some form of licensed sale of drugs which would deprive the pushers of their market while obliging registered addicts to take treatment. The key to beating the traffic is to remove its prodigious profitability and to deglamorise drug abuse by a heavy programme of public education.(Boaz, 122) The government can continue harassing, humiliating and jailing drug users in the name of helping them stay away from evil. It can continue fostering violence and corruption in the name of protecting our society. Or, America can begin fighting drugs through peaceful means, taking the problem away from police and jailers doctors and educators. Legalizing drug usewith certain restrictionswould eliminate the terrible collateral damage wreaked by the war on drugs.

It would respect the right of individuals to make personal choices about what they consume, while still holding them responsible for the harm they cause others. It would free up real money for prevention and treatment programs that currently enjoy more lip service than funding. And it would encourage people with problems to seek help rather than take them underground. Any new approach to drugs must begin by replacing hype and demagoguery with information and analysis. It must discriminate between the uses and misuses of drugs.

It must also account for paternalistic moralizing for hypocritical double standards.(Boaz, p. 135) Legalizing drugs would not be a panacea. Many people would continue to use them recklessly andjoin their ranks. But scare scenarios of a prostrate, addicted nation have no basis. Clearly, there will be some increase in drug use if drugs are made legal and accessible at a reasonable price.

Yet the benefits of legalization will outweigh the negatives: less crime, less available for greater rehabilitation efforts, fewer jail cells and prisoners, better utilization of law enforcement personnel, greater respect for the law, fewer corrupted policeman, and fewer deaths from impure substances. Furthermore, taxes from these legalized substances will fund treatment centers and educational outreach. If we can distribute condoms and clean needles to control the spread of diseases, why can’t we bring ourselves to distribute drugs cheaply and legally? The same arguments made about cause and effect ought to be made here as well. Granted, America has a vast and terrible problem with the issue on drugs in the 1990s, but as Robert Kennedy opined, “If the alternatives [are] disorder or injustice, the rational choice is injustice. For when there is disorder, we cannot obtain or maintain justice.”(Boaz, p. 120).