The War on Drugs has been fought for the past several decades in the United States – billions of dollars have been spent fighting the flow of illegal drugs into America, seemingly to no avail. Millions of Americans use illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin) regularly, and even the most well-organized and efficient anti-drug efforts seem to do little against this. With that in mind, it is time to reevaluate the moral and philosophical objections to drugs in the US; philosophers such as Milton Friedman would argue that it is best to decriminalize drugs and make them legal. On the other hand, opponents believe that drugs should remain illegal, given their presumed health effects and supporting of criminal enterprises and infrastructure. In essence, the legalization of drugs (such as marijuana) would relieve an already taxed (and deeply flawed) law enforcement system, would prevent otherwise innocent people from falling victim to said system, and permit people to engage in free-market exercising of their personal autonomy and responsibility.
Perhaps the most prominent advocate of legalizing drugs is noted economist Milton Friedman. One of the most important tenets of Friedman's perspective is the relationship between economic freedom and political freedom: "there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom" (Friedman 7). In essence, if we are to posit that a free society is the best society, and is the one we want to participate in, it is vital that the government take a limited role in controlling the economy. If the economy is placed under the control of the government, exchange of ideas is limited, as we do not have the opportunity to freely dissent against the way the government is regulating said business by using alternatives. In order for real exchange of ideas to occur, "bi-laterally voluntary and informed" transactions have to be mutually beneficial to both parties involved; the government, according to Friedman, interferes with that process and makes it far from viable (Friedman 15). Granting the individual the economic freedom to make his or her own choices with their money is the only way individual dignity can be maintained; the interference of government in the economic process forces a mixed, confused system that does not know how many freedoms it wants to give its people. As this relates to drugs, the act of regulating and prohibiting drugs takes away freedoms to individuals, which Friedman believes people should have (even if they are harmful to others).
Perhaps the most controversial drug involved in these discussions is marijuana; for most of the 20th century and beyond, it has been illegal in the United States and other countries, turning its sale and usage into a vast underground market that has gone untapped by any professional outlet. Some say that it is a harmful, addictive drug that leads to health detriments down the line for those who use it. However, there are others who claim that it is perfectly safe, not addictive, and could be an incredible source of income for a legitimate economy. The legalization of marijuana has the potential to create an incredible revenue stream of a highly demanded product that is safe to use. First, marijuana has not been shown or verified to have any detrimental effects on the human body. Also, marijuana has a substantial history of medical and clinical applications for people with certain conditions. Medical marijuana is often used as an anesthetic in a large number of countries all around the world (Koch, 2006). Glaucoma is another condition in which medical marijuana is distributed to patients, as it helps alleviate the symptoms and increase comfort in the person suffering, including lowering eye pressure (Southall, 2010). Fifteen states, as well as the District of Columbia, currently allow medical marijuana to be sold and prescribed to its citizens to this day (New York Times, 2011). Ostensibly, medical marijuana’s purpose is to relieve pain, nausea, and loss of appetite in those patients who have debilitating conditions, such as cancer or AIDS. To that end, it seems especially counterproductive to keep marijuana illegal, as the claims of its negative effects are spurious at best.
Drugs, if legalized, could bring in substantial tax revenue for state and federal governments, a blessing in today’s economically charged climate. If the recently downturned Proposition 19 had passed in California, nearly $1.4 billion in tax revenue would have been earned by the state (New York Times, 2011). This could have been used for prison and law enforcement budget enhancements, which is very important in a time when many police departments are understaffed, and prisons are overcrowded. There is a substantial demand for drugs, mostly due to their illegal nature; the tapping of this untouched market is rife with possibility, as the demand would remain, but government could tax the purchase of drug purchasing, particularly for medical purposes. To that end, people would still be able to exercise their personal freedoms, while also providing needed revenue to their government in exchange for public services.
The legalization of drugs would lessen the burden of an increasingly taxed and exhausted criminal justice system. Currently, the prison system is extremely flawed, creating a cycle of repeat offenders due to a prison culture that demands that people become tougher than they may have been before in order to survive, no matter what offense got them in prison in the first place (Nadelmann, 2004). Prisons are also overcrowded due to unnecessarily tough sentences on subjectively minor crimes such as pot possession, in order for judges and political officials to seem “tough on crime.” These convicted felons, who are guilty of nothing more than seeking out the use of drugs and may not have been involved in other criminal affairs, are then introduced into the prison system. Threats of violence and rape are common in many federal prisons, and as a result inmates have to resort to violent measures in order to make it through in one piece. This turns ordinarily innocent people into violent criminals through the prison system itself, leaving them wholly incapable of dealing with the outside world by the time they get out. Their ability to get jobs, most importantly, would be affected due to their status as an ex-convict (Nadelmann, 2004). The legalization of marijuana would also allow those who would otherwise not enter a life of crime to avoid it altogether; this frees them up to be productive members of society, and it saves the taxpayer money for preventing another prisoner that must be housed in already overcrowded prisons. The prison system is also structured in such a way that rehabilitation and reintegration into society is extremely difficult. This can happen to even those who are only guilty of drug possession; the prison experience is often tied to a life of violence behind bars, which is carried back into civilian life, making them far less suitable for integration into society than they were before.
There are many opponents to drug legalization, their reasoning being primarily health-based. First, they claim that marijuana is addictive, and that it can also act as a gateway drug to harder drugs, such as cocaine or heroin. It is implied that marijuana usage blocks neurons and replaces neurotransmitter chemicals, potentially causing permanent brain damage (Koch, 2006). Also, opponents state that marijuana use is not medically sound, and that there are no real measurable results found in people who take it to address medical conditions (Dixie and Bensinger, 2010). Another opponent believes that the case for medical marijuana is merely a smokescreen for allowing recreational use to run rampant, and to make an easier case for the total legalization of the drug. They claim that gang use and crime would increase as a result of the legalization of marijuana, and that youth would abuse it to a debilitating degree (New York Times, 2011). There are even concerns among many pro-marijuana advocates that legalization would drive up prices, despite their desires for greater legitimacy for cannabis – the loss of romanticism related to pot smoking might make the number of people who smoke decrease if it is legalized (Palmeri and Marois, 2010).
These opinions could not be further from the truth. Experiments performed on the use of marijuana have found only positive results, and in some cases has helped people immensely with a variety of symptoms, including nausea from cancer treatments (Koch, 2006). Also, the demand for marijuana is much greater than anticipated by many; nearly 46% of people in a 2010 Gallup poll stated that they would like marijuana to be legal. In a sample of 20 respondents, when asked about their opinion on marijuana legalization, 40% said they would prefer legalization, while 60% desired varying degrees of restriction in its legality. According to this study, males are far more likely to pull for marijuana legalization than women, regardless of actual experience with the drug.
Because of the overwhelming public support for the legalization of drugs like marijuana, the fundamental arguments against legalization must then be somewhat flawed. Many people claim drug use and abuse as a moral sin, as they have the capacity to be dangerous and lead to negative health effects (this is at least confirmed in harder drugs like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines). In essence, the collective peoples of a nation should be protected from the adverse effects of drug use on a community. Admittedly, drug use does not just affect the individual, but the community as a whole; people who are allowed to use drugs may find their habits to be detrimental to their family and work life, thus providing a net loss to the community. To that end, the prohibition of drugs is a communal priority, rather than an individual one; the point is to protect others from the effects of drug use (like the contribution to criminal enterprises). However, this is a circular argument, as the prohibition of drugs is what associates it with criminal enterprises, since people have to commit crimes in order to get the drugs they desire. If they were legalized, drugs would no longer necessarily be linked to these other societal ills. Furthermore, it would also address the ongoing problems of an overcrowded, racially insensitive and corrupt prison system, as well as stop contributing to destabilizing elements in countries like Colombia and Mexico (i.e. the dangerous drug trade they engage in to smuggle illicit drugs to the US).
With this substantial support for drugs becoming legal, it is difficult to believe that a relatively safe product would not be provided to the demanding customer. The possibilities for marketing and distribution are immense, and have the potential to create incredible revenue streams for the state government, not to mention dispensaries and businesses who are allowed to sell it. What’s more, in the chance that drugs like marijuana were to cause adverse side effects, government regulation of drugs via their legalization would substantially increase quality control to the point where a patient can rely on the products they get from their dispensary far more than any illegal dealer. Also, people who are prescribed drugs in a legal state can be given protections against being fired from companies which have no-drug policies (Southall, 2010). This would also diminish crime levels across the board, as people would be much more willing to go through legal channels to get it, as opposed to those who would otherwise not turn to a life of crime doing so because they just want to be able to exercise their personal freedoms. It could become a bumper crop, with many researchers looking at a large drug tourism boom for any states that legalize them, turning it into a larger-than-life industry that cannot be ignored. The sheer amount of money a state could benefit from in the event of drug legalization is staggering.
In conclusion, the legalization of drugs is preferable to continuing a governmental system that encroaches on people’s personal freedoms, even if it is ostensibly for their own good. The criminal justice system could experience a vast, sweeping expansion in its budget, as overcrowded prisons will have a smaller proportion of nonviolent offenders, and the whole of society can benefit from those whose work lives are not interrupted by jail time. The number of jobs that are available will skyrocket, as an entirely new industry will have to be staffed. All of the arguments for and against the War on Drugs essentially boils down to a question of who should be prioritized when making legislation or the rules of a society: the society as a whole, or the individual’s rights. While it may be tempting to protect people from ourselves, the fact that we can think for ourselves and act on our own impulses is what makes us human. To stifle that, therefore, would be antithetical to our very nature, and oversteps the bounds of what the government should be allowed to do. Since the use of drugs is largely a personal choice, people should have the ability to make that choice or not.
Works Cited
Bensinger, Peter and Dixie, Dora “Marijuana is Bad Medicine, Bad Policy" USA Today. 24 Nov. 1992: 6A. LexisNexis.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Print.
Koch, Kathy. “Medical Marijuana. Should doctors be able to prescribe the drug?” The Researcher, 9, (31), CQ Press, 2006. Print.
Nadelmann, Ethan. "An End To Marijuana Prohibition" National Review. July 12, 2004. Print.
New York Times. "Marijuana and Medical Marijuana - The New York Times." Times Topics. N.p., 11 Feb. 2011. Web. 13 May 2011. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html?sc p=1&sq=legalize%20marijuana&st=cse>.
Palmieri, Christopher, and Michael Marois. "The Latest Fiscal Buzz? Medical Marijuana - BusinessWeek." Businessweek. N.p., 15 July 2010. Web. 13 May 2011. <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188035394752.htm>.
Southall, Ashley. “Washington,D.C., Approves Medical Use of Marijuana.” The New York Times (2011): 17. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 May. 2011.
