Decriminalization is the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply. Decriminalization isn’t the same as legalization. Decriminalizing drug use doesn’t make it legal. It just takes the legal penalties away from at-risk individuals. Selling and distributing the drug would still be a criminal offense. It could mean rehabilitation, a fine of however much the state decides on the convicted, this means less incarceration for drug users and addicts. Countries such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Italy have controlled both drugs and crime, whereas in the United States harshly punitive programs have increased the supply of both crime and drug use. Considering these harsh consequences, this is part of the reason why so many are incarcerated in the U.S. 46.2% of the population of people incarcerated at the moment is for drug offenses.
Upon reading Gore Vidals "Case for Legalizing Marijuana" one may wonder why drugs are not legal in the United States of America. Afterall, several valid reasonings were made throughout the article. There is a demand for drugs and many people are supplying them, while also making a small fortune. If drugs were made legal and sold for high prices, their market would decrease because many people would not be able to afford them. Most people involved in the drug world do not know the consequences of that which they consume. If drugs were labeled with the affects that they have, it is likely that people would turn away from them. However, it would be the users choice to continue drug use if they wished. People are simpily uneduacated about the realtites of drug use. Sometimes drugs can be benifical to ones health but they can also be deadly. If there was an open market for drugs and Americans’ were educated on the effects drugs can have on their bodies, the monopoly for drugs would rapidly decrease.
‘The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half.’ (Maia
For instance, the crime would be committing a crime as a result of the effect of the drug has on their behavior. Also, manufacturing, producing, refining, and selling the drugs are crimes as well. Additionally, legalizing drugs would crash Black markets since drugs would be available to everyone, the demand with decrease causing the Black market to fall. Further, people won't be pay large sums of money to purchase drugs off of the Black market. This will also cause the cartels and gangs to fall apart because they are so reliant selling and trading of drugs through the Black market, and they will be forced to create a business or quit. Again, regarding cartels, there won't as many territorial disputes, reducing crime and violence. Finally, people who were incarcerated for the possession of drugs will be set free, reducing the density, overpopulated prisons. The freeing of prisoners would result in tax dollars being spent elsewhere the. Spending it on keeping drug users in
However, there are many that argue that the decriminalization of possession of drugs would redirect focus of the law enforcement system of any country to put more effort into arresting dealers and big time criminals, instead of arresting minor criminals for mere possession, and thus be more effective. It also has more focus on the drug user instead of drug lords which is a more humane approach as compared to the others. Decriminalisation then includes diversion programmes instead of incarceration. Decriminalisation also removes the stigma attached to a criminal conviction for the use of
In his article, Drugs, Gore Vidal argues that there is a solution to the drug epidemic in America: simply make all drugs legal and sell them at cost. Gore has a particularly compelling argument, and much of that has to due with the rhetorical strategies and techniques he uses. Gore starts his argument off by saying that marijuana is neither addictive or dangerous, and definitely not as dangerous cocaine and heroin. While this article was written in 1970, many Americans feel this way in 2016— that marijuana is not as dangerous as other drugs. Gore, in a way, is aware of his audience, and accommodates them.
The financial costs of illicit drug use can be roughly measured by how much the government spend on law enforcement and the loss of human productivity. Globally the world spends $100 billion annually on law enforcement aimed in an effort to enforce, prevent, treat, and reduce harm caused by illegal drugs. Despite all the money spent on the interdiction of illegal drugs, drug markets continue to rise and expand. Law enforcement provides very poor value for money that should instead be allocated for education, public infrastructure or in the form of lower taxes. Additionally, drug use causes loss in human productivity which is bad for the economy. In 2008 the cost of lost human productivity in Australia was $425m. Although drug users in general tend to be unproductive, the accrue in opportunity cost is significant, and would have been beneficial for a country’s economy. These two economic factors inflicted because of illicit drug use, are amounted to greatly impact society, as they are paying for largely unnecessary law enforcement, and are at loss because of lost human
Today many countries try to regulate the numbers of drugs users as many as they can by using the scary promotions and commercials to attract the attention from people, albeit ineffective. Rather than using the outmoded methods, legitimacy should be announced for all drugs in order that the regulation will process more ease for the government. In this procedure, the government can legislate the limitations for drugs consumption and people will be able to understand drug disadvantages profoundly. Therefore, allowing drugs as ordinary substances will abate the drug consumption.
I just believe the way our government has chosen to deal with the issue of drug use is likely not the best option, and now thousands of people are starting to realize this as well. Law enforcement has significantly ramped up in the last 40 years, as evidently shown by the large increase in spending towards law enforcement and the war on drugs. An estimated $1 trillion has been spent so far on attempting to rid the United States of drugs, which ultimately has been a major failure, as drug use is just as if not more widespread than it was before the war on drugs even began. Now think of all the things that money could have been put towards besides fighting drugs. If they had focused on combatting drug addiction rather than drugs themselves, then it would be much more likely that a decline in overall drug use would occur, as currently the cartels seem to have little struggle with flooding our country with drugs no matter how much we spend. Instead of attempting to stop the drugs from coming in, there could have been hundreds of centers that could’ve helped people with their issues and got them off drugs, because it is near impossible for an addict to stop on their own when they have built a physical need for that specific substance. Not only that, but the government could have also invested more into spreading awareness about avoiding overdoses and where to find help if they need it. Our country needs to realize that we can’t stop the flow of drugs into our country, and accept that it would be be more efficient to stop the issue at its roots, the people using these
For example, agencies have been established with the sole intent to manage drug use and distribution and technology has been exclusively developed to detect the presence of drugs. Yet, evidence has indicated that such exhaustive efforts have been relatively unsuccessful. First, it has been assumed that drugs have perpetuated violence in society and based on this rationale, it was believed that by the suppressing the pervasiveness of drugs that incidents of violence would simultaneously diminish. However, reality has failed to align with the expectations that had initially been anticipated. Research findings have suggested that the decriminalization of drugs would result in a less adversarial drug market in which conflicts have tended to arise among dealers as well as between dealers and buyers (Common Sense for Drug Policy, 2007, p. 21). Essentially, although drugs have been held accountable for gang violence and other acts of violence that have occurred within communities, the illegality of drugs indeed may have aggravated the situation.
America is a country known for its impregnable environment— one of the essential lures for others to join this melting pot of people. In recent years, the southern border has been left open and vulnerable to contamination, brutality, and economic downfall. From where have these realities catastrophizing our nation arisen? Walking in almost freely, pregnant herds of Mexican illegal immigrants infiltrate the United States by the millions, carrying on their backs a plethora of diseases, including, but not limited to, Malaria, Leprosy, and HIV, along with millions of pounds of cocaine and marijuana each year. The drug war in America grows rapidly and is a strong contributor to the violence seen in the nation today. Not only do the creatures serve
The consumption of drugs have always been a part of society, from tobacco used by the native Americans to the coco leaf used by mayans, people exhibit a tendency to use narcotics. While drugs were used for medicinal purposes risks were still associated with them as they are today. As with most things, narcotics can be harmful, and even dangerous, while drugs do not usually cause a society to collapse, it does have a profound effect on how societies function as in the case of the 1900s.While there were positives to the initial inaction of prohibition it was more detrimental than beneficial.
The main issue when it comes to drugs in the United States is the inefficient policies and sentencing laws that have been created. Also, the injustices within these policies pertaining primarily to race. Once the “war on drugs” was claimed the only way the government and law enforcement saw fit to handling this skyrocketing issue was to incarcerate offenders. Although this solution worked for a while, other alternatives needed to be made. However, these alternatives were not made and this left the drug policies, sentencing laws, and injustices at a standstill. Alternative policies and sentencing laws need to be made due to high incarceration rates. These high rates are costing the government and tax payers more money out of their pockets. This
The prohibition of intoxicating beverages was one of the least successful experiments in American social and criminal history, but in spite of its obvious failure in the 1920s, the American experiment in prohibition is still being continued today. For decades, our leaders have been telling us that America is in the middle of a drug epidemic, and the trade in illicit drugs has certainly created a criminal industry that is incredibly profitable and extremely violent. Until recently, however, few respectable political or law enforcement officials have been willing to consider the possibility of legalization. The moral, medical and social disgrace attached to illegal drug use was simply too great. In recent years, however, as the crisis has escalated
As of recent, the war on drugs has been a very often discussed topic due to many controversial issues. Some people believe the War on Drugs has been quite successful due to the amount of drugs seized and the amount of drug kingpins arrested. I believe this to be the wrong mindset when it comes to the war on drugs. The war on drugs isn’t a winnable one so we must do all that is possible to assist those who struggle with drug addiction and decriminalize small amounts of drugs. These minor changes in the way we combat drugs will create significant change and have lasting effects.