EPTDebates as to the nature of this "War on Drugs" have been intense, multi-sided, and sometimes quite complicated as many perspectives weigh in on the issue. While the libertarian perspective says that the government is not even allowed to do what they are doing, others believe that the government is not doing enough, and that we should fight harder against drug users/dealers so that they can no longer operate. On the other hand, we see a growing movement towards legalizing "soft-drugs" like marijuana, but keeping "hard-drugs" like heroin outlawed.
If our political system works the way it should, then the current policy adopted by the federal government should be the policy that fits the viewpoint of the majority. If we assume this to be true, then it follows that the majority of people in America, at least for now, must believe that the federal government is doing the right thing by banning the use of drugs, and that the punishments given to offenders are acceptable and within reason. This point of view comes from the belief that the use of these illegal drugs is not only harmful to the user, but harmful to the people around him/her and also a danger to society as a whole. Ted Belling asserts in his web article, "Why Legalizing Drugs is a Bad Idea" that "The wide spread ramifications of this (legalizing drugs) could not be fully grasped by these people (proponents of legalizing drugs); otherwise they would never consider it. Either that or they just don’t care about what happens to all the Americans that will become victims of their selfish, drug craving desires." (Belling) Similar sentiments can be heard from many of those who are against legalizing drugs.
A very common misconception, which Belling seems to have fallen into, is that being against the "War on Drugs" means that one is pro-drug, and that if drugs become legal, everyone will start using them. In the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate in May 2011, U.S. Senator Ron Paul satirically asks, "How many people here would use heroin if it was legal? I bet nobody would. . . 'Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me! I don't want to use heroin so I need these laws!'" (Paul). Though Dr. Paul's statement was clearly made in a joking manner, his point was very serious: Just because something is legal does not mean that everyone will do it, and it is not the role of the government to protect us from ourselves. It is also important to note that the fact that something is illegal will not deter people from doing it. In the same Fox News debate, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson claims that "Half of what we spend on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons is drug related. And to what end? We're arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country, we now have 2.3 million people behind bars in this country, and we have highest incarceration rate of any country in the world." (Johnson). Regardless of the legality of it, people still use drugs. The only difference is that they have to obtain the drugs through shady channels rather than buying them at a store. As a result, we spend millions of dollars on drug related law enforcement procedures, and our prisons are filling up fast with offenders of drug laws. In addition, we see a rise in violent drug-related crime not only in America, but in nearby countries like Mexico as well, as drug smugglers have been found tunneling underneath the U.S.-Mexican border.
There are those who look at these problems and conclude that they are caused by the U.S. not being ambitious enough in its anti-drug policies. In fact, Mexican president Felipe Calderon, when asked about the dangerous drug cartels running rampant in his country, has stated that the U.S. is not doing enough to reduce the demand for Marijuana, asserting in an interview with BBC News that "They (the Americans) have a clear responsibility in this because they are providing the market for the drug dealers and the criminals." (BBC News) In his interview, Mr. Calderon claims that the United States is not doing its part to reduce the demand for the drugs that the cartels in his country are supplying. He says that any and all attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs in America should be batted down by voters, and the U.S. government should step up their enforcement of drug laws.
Many of those in the U.S. who agree with this position might also demand an even stricter drug control policy than that which is already in place, and greater punishments for those who break these laws. This side of the argument is based on the idea that the problems associated with the "War on Drugs" such as overcrowded prisons, violent drug cartels and compromised border security can be solved by increasing federal regulation, adding more security personnel to the national borders, and expanding our prisons to fit more people into them. Calderon and others would say that the reason drugs are still causing problems in society is because the punishments given to offenders are not harsh enough, and because law enforcement may not yet have enough power to fully control the situation.
But is this way of thinking really the right way to deal with the issue? One of the main arguments for legalizing drugs is that by doing so, it would make it unnecessary for criminal drug dealers to stay in business. Trafficking marijuana would be like trafficking alcohol. In fact, history tells us that outlawing substances actually increases crime rates. In 1919, the 18th amendment prohibiting the sale and manufacture of alcohol was ratified. In 1933, this amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment to the constitution because it was realized to have been a mistake. Making alcohol illegal gave rise to dangerous gangs of bootleggers, increased rates of violent crime nationwide, and exacerbated economic woes due to overpopulation of prison inmates. These are some of the same problems we are seeing arise as a result of the "War on Drugs." Have we learned nothing from history? The idea that history repeats itself is not just some clever saying that makes news writers sound smart. Many of the problems we are seeing as a result of the "War on Drugs" are identical to those we saw as a result of the alcohol prohibition, yet we continue to fight this unwinnable war. While fighting unwinnable wars seems to be a United States specialty, one has to wonder when we will learn the lesson that history is trying to teach us and withdraw. Ending the prohibition of alcohol removed any reason for violent crime around alcohol to exist. Ending the prohibition of drugs should do the same. This plan is a much more viable solution to President Calderon's concerns than tightening the fist of the federal government.
When we talk about legalizing drugs, though, one question almost invariably tends to arise: How far would we go? Do we legalize all drugs, or just the "soft drugs" like marijuana? Most often, the argument is that marijuana should be legalized because it is not particularly harmful, and drugs like heroin should remain outlawed because they are far more dangerous. In an article for SalemNews, medical doctor Phil Leveque claims that "Marijuana is less addictive and less dangerous than Starbuck’s espresso." (Leveque) Dr. Leveque's statement may be a hyperbole, but it is true that there are many more dangerous drugs than marijuana, such as Oxycontin and Trazadone, being prescribed in hospitals today. Thus, it does not make sense for these drugs to be legal while marijuana is banned. Proponents of marijuana legalization very commonly compare it to alcohol, complaining that alcohol is far more addictive and harmful than pot, yet alcohol is completely legal. If this is true then clearly we need to make a choice: Legalize marijuana or ban alcohol, otherwise our laws wouldn't make sense. But we have already seen that banning alcohol was a massive failure and is out of the question. It would seem that there is only one choice left to make if we have any desire for our laws to make any sense at all.
Of course, if we really want our laws to make sense, then we have to look at the United States Constitution and decide if what the federal government is doing is even allowed to be done in the first place. Texas republican Dr. Ron Paul would say "Absolutely not." As a libertarian, Dr. Paul is a strict constitutionalist; meaning that he does not support any law that is unconstitutional. In an interview with John Stossel of ABC News, Paul contends that "The first federal law against marijuana was in 1938 and they did it through high taxation because they knew they didn't have the authority to say 'You're not allowed to smoke marijuana.' Today, it's gone berserk!" (Paul) He says that the prohibition of drugs is exactly like the prohibition of alcohol, and that "The government's role should not be involved in personal habits." (Paul) Ron Paul advocates letting individual states decide their own drug policy, since the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate these kinds of things. He says "I don't believe that government can regulate virtue...governments can't protect people from themselves...It's just impossible. Otherwise you become a tyrannical state." (Paul) Based on this position, it wouldn't be too farfetched to say that it is actually illegal for the federal government to make drugs illegal.
What this whole argument comes down to, really, is the following question: How much power should our federal government have over our personal lives? In the end it does not matter how one feels about the effects of drugs on our society because legally, the federal government does not have the right to regulate these things. That decision goes to the individual states. It seems we have not learned our lesson from the failures of the alcohol prohibition, and it seems that people these days have either forgotten what their rights are, or they are willing to give up their rights so that the federal government can "protect us from ourselves." No words can describe this situation more perfectly than those of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Franklin) If we continue to allow the federal government to regulate our personal habits, we are walking down a dark path to a tyrannical state. This same notion can be applied to the issues of homosexual marriage, prostitution, educational standards, and many other issues that are better left to the individual states to write the policies for. If we still believe in our Constitution, then we must legalize all drugs. This is not only the right thing to do, but it would also solve so many problems along the way including rising prison population, increasing drug related gang violence in the U.S. and Mexico, and the bottomless sinkhole of wasted federal funds that go toward paying for the "War on Drugs."
Works Cited
BBC News . "Mexico's Calderon: US not Doing Enough in Drugs War." BBC News. BBC News, 27 Oct 2010. Web. 18 Feb 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america- 11633914>.
Belling, Ted. "Why Legalizing Drugs is a Bad Idea." CaseLaw4Cops.net. Case Law 4 Cops. Web. 15 Feb 2012. <http://www.caselaw4cops.net/articles/legalizing_drugs.html>.
Franklin, Benjamin. "Quote Details: Benjamin Franklin." The Quotations Page. Michael Moncur, 10 Oct 2006. Web. 18 Feb 2012. <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html>.
Johnson, Gary. Ron Paul Discusses Legalization of Drugs. 2011. South Carolina. Video. Youtube.com. Web. 25 Apr 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupRuxwuMLE>.
Leveque, Phil. "Medical Marijuana: The Replacement for Very Dangerous Drugs." Salem- News.com. Salem News, 17 May 2007. Web. 16 Feb 2012. <http://salem- news.com/articles/may172007/leveque_marijuana_51707.php>.
Paul, Ron. Ron Paul Discusses Legalization of Drugs. 2011. South Carolina. Video. Youtube.com. Web. 25 Apr 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupRuxwuMLE>.
Paul, Ron. Ron Paul on Marijuana, Prohibition, and Personal Freedom. 2007. Video. Youtube.com. Web. 17 Feb 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0GZznxMC14>.
