Attention
This order is completion for Drug Legalization, Order ID 36642 with Writer “FreelanceWriter”
Please complete these additional two pages with Final conclusion of Writer’s point of view, also giving strong Supporting Ideas .
Most of these page should focus on Writer’s personal point of view, it may also contain additinal pro and cons towards the topic.( the conclusion and ideas needs to be deeper).
I have also attached the previous order. for any other question please contact me before the due time.
LEGALIZATION OF RECREATIONAL DRUG USE
In 1920 the sale and consumption of alcohol was criminalized across the United
States pursuant to the 18th Amendment. Consumer demand nevertheless presented a ripe
opportunity for criminal usurpation of the illicit production and distribution of alcohol.
Consequently, by the time Prohibition was subsequently repealed by the 21st Amendment
in 1933, the criminal enterprises that it had spawned were so firmly entrenched into the
landscape of the American economy that most of them still retain considerable power even
today (Dershowitz, 2002).
Modern proponents of decriminalizing illicit drugs point to the complete failure of
Prohibition to achieve its goals, suggesting that contemporary laws criminalizing
recreational drugs such as marijuana, heroin and cocaine are as ineffective as was the 18th
Amendment, and more harmful to society than the aggregate of all the actual harm caused
by the unrestricted use of recreational drugs.
Predictably, those opposed to decriminalization fear the explosion of drug
addiction and drug related crime that would follow as a consequence of their unrestricted
use. They point to the well established link between drug abuse, juvenile delinquency and
petty crimes necessitated by expensive, addictive narcotics (Brecher, 1972).
Those opposed to decriminalization of recreational drugs consider the current
level of illegal drug abuse and criminal activities related thereto to represent merely
the very tip of the iceberg of an insurmountable epidemic of drug use currently kept in
relative check only by strict penal laws that operate as a deterrent to wider abuse.
In their view, decriminalizing recreational drugs would dramatically increase the
incidence of narcotics addiction and the crimes associated with the realities of a
massive influx of unemployed drug addicts desperate to pay for their ever increasing
habits by any means possible.
Proponents of decriminalization reject the suggestion that drug use and abuse
would necessarily increase substantially in the absence of penal laws criminalizing their
use. According to their view, the epidemic of narcotics-related crime is already at its
peak, because it results directly from the criminal elements currently responsible for its
importation, trade and sale. Furthermore, they maintain that contemporary laws
prohibiting recreational narcotics use have created the same situation that prevailed under
Prohibition by creating a black market which has been filled by ruthless criminal
Elements (Brecher, 1972).
Similarly, they suggest that the inflated cost of illicit drugs is to blame for the
link between drug abuse and petty crime, because the standard principles of black
market economics dictate a much higher price for drugs that are dramatically more
expensive than they would be under legislation decriminalizing their sale and use.
Likewise, they point to situations such as in New York, where the so-called ?Rockefeller
Laws? have resulted in the mandatory incarceration of scores of citizens whose only
crimes were entirely victimless, while violent and dangerous offenders pass through a
revolving door, overcrowded criminal justice system (Syracuse Post-Standard).
Upon considering the merits of the respective positions concerning the
decriminalization of illicit narcotics, it appears that the views espoused by proponents of
decriminalization are more consistent with the overall good of society on multiple levels.
First, it is simply irreconcilable, from a logical perspective, that cigarettes and
other tobacco products are sold completely legally, while private use and the mere
possession of marijuana and any other agent containing THC such as hashish are severely
penalized in many states. Opponents of decriminalization believe that government owes a
duty of paternalistic protection of its citizens, but critics point out that even the most well
motivated paternalistic laws must reflect a consistency in their application and effect
(Taylor, 1982). Meanwhile, cigarettes account for more deaths in this country than all
drugs, alcoholism, violent crime and vehicular accidents, combined (Brecher, 1972).
Second, alcohol abuse so closely parallels the effects of drug abuse that it is
equally unjustifiable to permit alcohol sale and consumption to account for tremendous
corporate revenue while criminalizing private use of narcotics altogether. Naturally, even
under a liberal analysis, personal rights and freedoms end wherever they conflict with the
well being and safety of others. Accordingly, proponents of repealing drug laws suggest
that laws addressing the criminal operation of motor vehicles and dangerous equipment
while under the influence of alcohol should be the extent of penal control of narcotics.
Third, rather than resulting in increased criminality, legalization of private
narcotics possession and use would actually decrease criminality associated with drug use,
because current legislation creates criminals, by punishing otherwise lawful citizens
whose only contact with the criminal justice system arises from their private, victimless
crime. Furthermore, redirecting public monies currently funding the ?War on Drugs? to
appropriate legislation and taxation modeled after tobacco legislation would benefit
society, both by generating taxes and more importantly, by dramatically lowering prices,
which are currently grossly inflated by the very black market economics that it creates.
Finally, the improved quality of government-regulated narcotics would probably
eliminate medical emergencies currently caused by adulterated, impure product, as well as
eliminate the widespread transmission of HIV via shared needles. In this regard, modern
narcotics prohibitions precisely parallel the horrible cost in lives lost to unscrupulous use
of poisonous alcohols (and formaldehydes) instead of ethanol during Prohibition. Rather
than learn from past mistakes, opponents of decriminalization are poised to repeat them.
REFERENCES
Brecher, E.M. (1972) Licit and Illicit Drugs: The Consumers Union Report.
Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Dershowitz, A. (2002) Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age
New York: Little Brown & Co.
Goldman, B., Klatz, R. (1992) Death in the Locker Room II:Drugs & Sports
Tucson: The Body Press
Gottlieb, A. (1976) The Pleasures of Cocaine.
Manhattan Beach, CA: Twentieth Century Alchemist
Let Judges Be Judges: Mandatory Sentencing Laws Deny Judicial Branch’s
Discretion; Syracuse Post-Standard. Jul 10/03
Taylor, R. (1982) Freedom, Anarchy and the Law.
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books
