Critique 1
Should drugs be legalized?
The issue of drug legalization is the topic of this critique, and I read both opposing views by Nadelmann and Inciardi + Saum, and found them to be both interesting and thought provoking. Both sides of the issue were addressed as far as reasons for the legalization of drugs and prohibition of these drugs. In this first page I will summarize what I got out of these articles, viewing the YES side first, and following it up with the NO side.
In the first article I found
it interesting that Nadelmann chose to start off by offering his views on the
abnormity of the lack of drug legalization in our society today, claiming that
drugs have been a part of our human nature since we have learned how to alter
our state of mind. Nadelmann however quickly jumps into defending drug use, and
suggesting as well as citing alternative solutions to the drug problem other
than complete prohibition. Beginning
with the common drug of marijuana, Nadelmann argues its implications in other
countries, and how it has affected their societies. He preaches on and gives statistics showing the drop in use of
youth in the Netherlands, accrediting the legalization of recreational
marijuana.
Another point that Nadelmann
argues is the seriousness of the crime of possession of drugs. Apparently he does not see this as a serious
crime, and thinks that it should be no more than a misdemeanor offense. In relation to this, he believes that the
law is too quick to send these drug users to jail, preferring treatment over
jail time. Nadelmann also goes on to
suggest differences in drug classification as soft and hard drugs, hinting at
the severity of the use of each type.
Opposing drug legalization
are Inciardi + Saum, who argued that drug legalization would not lower user
rates, crime rates, and drug production.
They were quick to use a hard drug like crack cocaine as an example
rather than the less dangerous marijuana to support their claims. In this article they pointed out that drug
users who commit crimes are not criminals who happen to be on drugs, but
instead stating that the use of drugs have a direct relation to crime. They even went so far as to say that those
who are on drugs such as crack cocaine may not realize their own course of actions
due to their drugged up state. I also
found it interesting that the criminals themselves put some of the blame for
their crimes on the drugs. Inciardi +
Saum finally went on citing the correlation between different drugs and crime
using percents and numbers to support their theories.
My response to these
readings is rather mixed, and I think that I can afford to straddle the fence
on this issue because of the hypocrisy of the entire drug idea. First off, we as a society use recreational
drugs on a regular basis (alcohol and nicotine), and do not consider it to be a
crime, so keeping other drugs illegal is rather inconsistent. Perhaps we could start legalizing different
drugs in the U.S. starting with marijuana.
I am not saying legalize all drugs, but at least the less harmful ones.
With the legalization of
drugs I think would come individual responsibility and individual choices. Now rather than the law telling us not to
use drugs, society would need to stay educated on the effects of drugs, and choose
whether or not to use them. Of course
people will use legal forms of drugs, and that is their choice, but in the long
run it is them who will suffer for their choices. This to me also seems like a moral issue, which was less touched
on in the article than the legal and economic perspectives in the
articles. Morally, who has the right to
tell me what kind of chemicals I put into my body? Nobody but me. Society as
a whole needs to take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame
anyone for the choices they make. Drugs
are bad for me, so I do not use them on a regular basis (alcohol and nicotine),
but I do have that choice. When I
choose to drink or smoke, I consciously made the decision to take the risks
involved, and I have no one to blame for the fallout but myself. Given the same chance to use currently
illegal drugs (marijuana), I would have to use the same discretion.
Economically, I think the
billions of dollars being spent on drug control could be better spent, and the
legalization of drugs would all but eliminate the need for this huge
expense. Not only that, but the
government could tax the drugs and bring in revenue from it. Money that is spent on drug control could
instead be spent on drug education and keeping people aware of what they could
be doing to themselves if they use a drug.
In closing this paper, I
think that this country could legalize drugs.
I hold this belief because I naively believe that people can make good
decisions based on good information.