Disadvantages Of Decriminalization

While America holds 10% of the world's population, America also holds 25% of the world's jailed population. That number is baffling because one in every 4 people are jailed. This comes rise in jailing trickles down to the war on drugs in the early 70’s. In June of 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs”. He increased law enforcement agencies and mandatory sentences for people charged with drug related crimes. These mandatory sentences made small crimes big crimes. Meaning people convicted of these crimes were locked away with other felons while getting no treatment for their addiction. Once released these people are now labeled as an Ex-Convict, now making it difficult to find a job and support their family. Once they finally realize that they can't get a job to make enough money to support their family they now go back to the one activity that they know will make money and that is the drug game. This is a vicious cycle that repeats itself over and

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.

The 1990’s marked the beginning of a new war on drugs. Drug abuse rates had started to increase, wider variety of drugs became more common, and more people started to use. Not a lot has changed, because drug abuse is still very common in today’s society. In the 1990s, drug usage was bad, however a lot of the drugs in today 's society were not as common. Drug abuse is not just in the big cities,the problem is all over.

Would the decriminalisation and / Legalisation of controlled substances improve or hinder the economic, health and social circumstances of drugs users, their families, communities and society?

The continuous use of narcotics results in addiction, and financial struggles due to the costly upkeep. “Financial problems are one of the major side effects of drug and substance abuse” (Buaggett, 2015). Addicts cannot adequately take an active role in the economic activities, as the use of drugs inhibits the abilities of the users to earn a daily living. Due to the instability of finances, this would result in selling personal belongings to continue funding the substance of choice, and depending on the addicts living situation, this could lead to losing their house or being removed from their current housing. While being under the influence, an addicts voice of reason is jeopardized, resulting in criminal activities which raise the chances of being apprehended by the law enforcers, as well as, heavy fines are imposed. In brief, the use of drugs has multiple adverse effects, and is highly associated with the status of homelessness among

While there are many reasons to be for the legalization of drugs, many people forget that the reason they’re illegal is to discourage drug

Thesis & Preview: as a result of the growing drug epidemic in the United States, thousands die every year. There are many proposed solutions for this problem such as decriminalization, rehab, prison, and even the death penalty. Today i'm going to discuss the pros, cons,

Illicit drugs are drugs that have been considered illegal, such as, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, in some locations (Levinthal, 2016). Legislating drugs began around 1900. In essence, the government let society govern the use and opinions of drugs. Most of society looked down upon the nonmedical use of drugs. Furthermore, several acts were enacted to regulate the use of specific drugs as well as the federal prohibition of alcohol. But in 1933, Prohibition ended, making it legal to consume alcohol again. In the 1970’s, drugs were categorized based on their “potential for abuse” (Levinthal, 2016). Unfortunately, many of the illicit drugs are manufactured outside of the United States. As such, the war on drugs has to be fought on a global

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, in 2007, the economic costs of drug abuse in the United States was $193 billion (How Illicit Drug Abuse). Of these costs, $120 billion is in lost productivity, due to labor participation costs, participation abuse treatment, incarceration, and premature death. Another $11 billion was in total healthcare costs. $61 billion was for criminal justice costs due to criminal investigation, prosecution, incarceration, and victim costs. Even though these estimates and costs may make drug trafficking appear to do more harm than good, that is not exactly the case in Mexico or many Latin American countries. On drug trafficking’s effects on the Mexican economy journalist Jacobo Zabludovsky said, “ If the heavens allowed for drug trafficking in Mexico to end tonight, tomorrow we would be dying of hunger. Or almost” (Que Seria De Mexico). Drug trafficking has a significant impact on how the economy runs in Mexico. Drugs alone bring in about $40 million dollars into the Mexican economy (Que Seria De Mexico). Without this amount of money due to drugs, the Mexican economy would most likely suffer or struggle without the substantial income. This revenue due to drugs is significant in comparison to other economic revenues. The Mexican revenue in 2009 for remittance was $21.181 million, tourism was $11.275 million, oil was $30.882 million, and foreign investment was $23.179 million (Que Seria De Mexico). The revenue is outstanding in comparison to the other sources of income for the country. These comparisons show how massive the industry has grown in Mexico and Latin America and how much it affect its economy. The estimated size of the drug business in Mexico is approximately $10 to $15 million (Que Seria De Mexico). This estimate is recognized in private by some agencies of the Mexican government ( Que Seria De Mexico).

People are using drugs either because they are depressed, in pain, or have a struggle they don’t want to face. Because these drugs are so addictive, people need money and resources to break the habit. This epidemic is a major social problem.

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.

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.

A country where all drugs are legalized can be the perfect economic and social compromise. Ultimately, it contains the both of best worlds as it would allow for the economy to flourish due to the infusion of new income from tax reforms. Drug liberalization is the next step for the United States for us to become a new country with limited violence less drug abuse and a better prison system. Drug liberalization needs to happen and happen fast for the progression of the people as a civilization.

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.

Drugs are one of the crime sources, although not by the drugs, itself, but the condition. Illegal drugs are rare products that could not be found in the normal market, the cost for its rarity is totally expensive. Once the addicts—people who cannot live without consuming drugs—try to use the products, they will seek for the larger amount of drugs to consume. However, as they consume the drugs constantly, the price keep increasing abruptly and they become peter out of money. When those people are unable to buy the drugs, they will struggle to buy it and almost of the