Pubdate: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 Source: Daily Targum (Rutgers, NJ Edu) Copyright: 2006 Daily Targum Contact: http://www.dailytargum.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/715 Authors: Edward Fu and Sean Li Note: Edward Fu is a Rutgers College sophomore, majoring in computer science. Sean Li is a Rutgers College first-year student. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) SHOULD DRUGS BE LEGALIZED? Point/Counterpoint The United States' campaign against recreational drugs is a fine example of lofty ideals trumping reality. The United States spends over $50 billion dollars annually on the War on Drugs but has had little to show for it; the use of every major recreational drug has increased since the laws that illegalized them. 60% of prisoners are in jail for drug offenses - each at a cost of almost half a million dollars to the government. Yet, it is estimated 50 million Americans have used illegal drugs within the past year. The enormous cost of this fruitless Drug War not only places an enormous burden upon an already over-stretched budget but also drains money from more effective rehabilitation programs. It seems irrational and counterproductive to label drug addicts as criminals and throw them into jail with almost no hope of therapy. A genuine rehabilitation program is a far more effective and affordable way to actually treat the problem of drug addiction, but such programs can never work effectively if drugs remain illegal. Few drug users will ever seek treatment from an organization run by the same government seeking to throw him in jail. Furthermore, the costs of the Drug War aren't simply financial. It would severely detract from the ability of law enforcement to pursue other crimes, if they actually had to arrest every single drug user. Consequently, when cops are allowed to choose who to arrest, racial profiling rears its ugly head, and officers tend to arrest people of a certain ethnic group they believe 'most likely' to be a drug user. What is the result? We now live in a society where two-thirds of black male high school students will be dead, disabled or in prison before their thirtieth birthday. For every black man who goes to college, three will go to prison - the vast majority for non-violent drug charges. When they are released from prison - as black men with a prison record - it will be almost impossible for them to find stable employment, only perpetuating the vicious cycle of poverty. These people, however, haven't really done anything wrong. Smoking marijuana affects no one else, infringes upon no one's rights and is not malum in se. Nonetheless, these people will now forever be classified into a category that places them among the murderers, rapists and kidnappers of society. Those criminals deserve the label "ex-convict." Contrarily, someone who lights a blunt in the privacy of his own room doesn't. The worst part about these arrests is the hypocrisy inherent in the Drug War. Tobacco kills about 400,000 people annually and alcohol 80,000 people. As for drugs, combined, they only amount to 4,500. Abuse of drugs certainly could lead to disastrous consequences, but the same holds true for many other addictive substances. We ban smoking in public areas, because we recognize second-hand smoke violates the rights of others. However, we don't ban smoking itself, because regulating what adults can put into their own bodies is plainly an unconstitutional infringement on personal liberties. We realize the difference between a recreational drinker and one who commits crimes while drinking. Therefore, why don't we accept the same dichotomy for drug users? Our code of law is founded upon a principle of presumptive rationality. We treat adults as rational beings and allow them to make choices. As such, it is clear the government is entirely unjustified in singling out this particular personal freedom to override at such enormous cost to society. By Edward Fu - ---------- Arguing for the legalization of drugs is a good crusade for personal liberties; however, it also ignores the grave repercussions of enacting this policy. First of all, the War on Drugs is entirely winnable. There was a steady decrease of the use of drugs in America from the late '70s to the early '90s, before the War on Drugs was moved to the bottom of the list of priorities. The funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy was slashed by 80%, and the result was a 106% increase in teenagers using drugs. These statistics show the United States can win the war, if it focuses on the war against drugs - not just by saying "Mission Accomplished". Even though we have many priorities to balance today, the correct policy is not simply to give up - essentially what Ed suggests. The main point for the legalization of drugs is usually personal choice; if it does not harm anyone but themselves, it is okay. Proponents of the other side usually point to smoking inside one's own room. It does not harm anyone else but themselves, so it's legal. Unfortunately, drugs do harm other people, not just the person that does them. You can smoke in your own room, but it does not alter your mind like phencyclidine does, in that you might kill or rape the next person that walks in the door. When people pay higher insurance rates for drug-related health problems, higher taxes for rehab centers and more money for court cases involving drugs, doing drugs clearly does not just harm those that use them. Even if it only affects the user, the United States is fully in its power to enact laws that protect people from hurting themselves - seatbelt laws are a prime example. Secondly, this opens up the can of worms on personal choice in drugs. If you can get drugs like heroin and PCP at the local convenience store, should not you be able to get drugs you can only get by prescription now? If it is your choice to shoot up on heroin, why not be able to use drugs like phentermine and fenfluramine, which was pulled from the market because of its dangerous side effects but could be used as a diet drug? If you can take heroin whenever you choose, then there is no reason for having to justify taking any other drug. Essentially, if drugs were to be legalized, either the system of getting prescriptions is trashed or hard drugs - like heroin and cocaine - would be easier to get than safer prescription drugs that have been legalized by the Food and Drug Administration. Another issue is the black market will disappear with the legalization of drugs. Too bad the legalization of drugs means a tax for more rehabilitation centers and paying for criminal cases on drug-crimes. This tax means cheaper, black market drugs will still be the drug of choice for the majority - so the black market stays. Also, it is interesting to note crime in the Netherlands actually increased after marijuana was legalized, not decreased. It is obvious if you legalize drugs, more people will use them, and this nation already has enough drug-related problems, without opening the market up to everyone who can walk down to the student center. Finally, I don't want people high on cocaine roaming the streets on Friday nights; I don't think most of you would either. By Sean Li - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake