Poopoosdf
08-12-2005, 02:48
Please rape m'essay! M'essay being a contraction of my essay. :rolleyes:
If there's a number after a period that's going to be a superscripted number for reference on my final paper. My sources came mainly from drugwarfacts.org, here (http://www.csdp.org/edcs/theneed.htm), and of course here (http://wikipedia.org).
A Failed Experiment
Our society has prohibited the manufacture, sale, possession and consumption of a vast majority of known drugs in an attempt to reduce crime and revitalize a sense of morality. However, this approach is rapidly failing and has proven to cause more problems than it solves. Supporters of drug illegalization claim that it reduces crime, drug use and, most importantly, that it works; unfortunately, it simply doesn’t.
Under prohibition the rate of violence, crime and death increase. The most prominent indicator of this fact is the rise of organized crime which thrives on the black market sale of illegal drugs. Criminal syndicates vie for power among each other leading to murders, drive-by shootings, violent territorial disputes, extortion, etc. Consequently, it is no surprise that the homicide rate increases during prohibition. It is interesting to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs; in 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed; in 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100, 000.1 Shortly after the 18th amendment was repealed the crime and homicide rates began to steadily decline. Drug-related death also witnesses an increase during prohibition, which is rather bizarre considering the nature of drug illegalization is to eliminate use and possession of drugs. Unfortunately, with the criminal element in control of the only supply of drugs problems begin to arise. With no liability or responsibility to their “customers”, drug lords worry only about their profits. If that means the heroin has some impurities in it, then so be it. Cutting corners as such, sadly, increases the chances of users dying while they inject, snort, consume, inhale, or otherwise indulge in their drug. Mysteriously, illegalization does not inflate the price of drugs. Over the years, the cost and price of drugs has declined making it easier and cheaper for a first time user to find a source of drugs. Again, this is contrary to the goal of prohibition which seeks to eliminate availability of such drugs. Part of that goal is forcing dealers to increase their prices (hopefully out of the range of any potential users) because of the rising cost and risk of getting drugs into the country. Regardless, even if that aspect of illegalization worked it is flawed. As the price of drugs goes up, users commit more crimes to fund their purchases.2 This isn’t to say that dealers are slashing prices and making less of a profit; in fact, the profit a drug dealer makes off the sale of a single drug is enormous. In 2001, a kilogram of heroin in Pakistan sold for an average of $610; the UN reports that in the US in 2001, heroin cost an average of $25,000 per kilogram.3 As is easily seen, the profit to be made selling drugs is a rather lucrative deal for a poor guy living in the slums. Speaking of massive profits, according to the United Nations, profits in illegal drugs are so inflated that three-quarters of all drug shipments would have to be intercepted to seriously reduce the profitability of the business; current efforts only intercept 13% of heroin shipments and 28%-40% of cocaine shipments. To put that in consistent perspective, three-quarters is equivalent to 75%. 13% does not equal 75%. 40% does not equal 75%. It would appear that something isn’t working.
The goal to reduce crime has not been achieved and neither has the goal to reduce usage or availability. The most common reason for this put forward is the forbidden fruit theory. That is to say that if something is denied to you, you will want it even more. Drugs are mysterious, pleasurable, but denied and that fosters rebellion and encourages experimentation. The Netherlands, a country with more relaxed drug laws than the US has fewer drug users than our nation. 32.9% of Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis; this is twice as high as the Netherlands’ figures. As for cocaine, the percentage of the general population who has used cocaine at some point is 10.5% in the US, five times higher than in the Netherlands.4 It is, however, entirely possible that this is due to a completely different cultural attitude towards drugs and lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, arrests for drug law violations have increased dramatically over the years. In 1973, there were 328,670 arrests logged in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for drug law violations; in 2004, that number rose to 1,745,712 arrests for drug law violations logged in the UCR.5 Perhaps this increase is due to population growth or the enactment of extremely strict laws? The population did not quintuple in 30 years and there is no law so strict that could warrant the arrest of nearly six times as many people. Despite the answer to the problem, the number of arrests should be decreasing over time; this would reflect the reduced availability and indulgence in drugs. Unfortunately, usage and availability have not decreased but increased. Fact.6
Finally, there remain the issues of the cost, utter hypocrisy and danger that prohibition poses. Currently prohibition requires nearly $17 billion on the federal level. Combine that with local and state expenditures on the “War on Drugs” and the total amount reaches $30 billion per year.7 The cost of prohibition has been fairly consistent since 1990, just to give an idea of how much money the United States has spent over the years. That’s $30 billion that could have been given back to the taxpayers and reinvested into the economy or used for other purposes. As mentioned before, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people being arrested. Now with mandatory sentencing, many of those people end up in prison. What does this mean for prisons? It means that they are, for the most part, made up of drug law offenders and that compromises need to be made. As it stands, the offenders have to spend time in prison; thus, only two options are left – spend tax dollars to create new prisons or push other prisoners out early to make room for drug offenders.8 Unfortunately, both have had to happen. Yet, the hypocrisy lingers. The whole driving force behind prohibition is that drugs are malevolent and that they endanger other people– a lot of other lifestyle choices do that as well. Most notably, tobacco, alcohol and poor diet/physical inactivity rank extremely high on the leading causes of death in the United States – they’re numbers one, two and three, respectively.9 Where’s illicit drug use? Right after sexual behaviors, incidents involving firearms, car crashes, toxic agents and microbial agents.10 Perhaps we should prohibit as many of these activities as we can to protect ourselves from our own choices or maybe we should just legalize drugs and let people be responsible for their decisions. Sadly, personal responsibility seems to be some ancient relic lost in the sands of time to big government and higher taxes. There remains, however, one final issue that must be addressed – if most of our law enforcement resources are being diverted towards drug-law offenders then what about those criminals who commit violent crimes? This is a rather dangerous strategy. Is the previously mentioned increase in the homicide rate brought on by the lack of police resources or by the increase in gang violence? Does the answer matter? Each outcome leads to a greater answer – prohibition doesn’t work.
Prohibition of any product in demand is doomed to fail. Basic economics dictate that if the demand for a certain product is great enough, someone will step in to supply it. In the case of prohibition, the black market nonchalantly offers its services to consumers. It is amazing though that the War on Drugs has managed to carry on despite its numerous shortcomings. One would hope that when a policy has been shown to be ineffective and weak that it would be removed or fixed; apparently, this is not the case. Alcohol prohibition was a failure; it increased the crime rate, cost taxpayers millions, infringed on personal freedoms, and – to top it all off – it didn’t even manage to reduce consumption; it did, however, manage to increase it. Of course, our prohibition of drugs today is a complete success; not a single parallel can be drawn between the illegalization of alcohol in the 1920s to the illegalization of drugs today. On second thought…
If there's a number after a period that's going to be a superscripted number for reference on my final paper. My sources came mainly from drugwarfacts.org, here (http://www.csdp.org/edcs/theneed.htm), and of course here (http://wikipedia.org).
A Failed Experiment
Our society has prohibited the manufacture, sale, possession and consumption of a vast majority of known drugs in an attempt to reduce crime and revitalize a sense of morality. However, this approach is rapidly failing and has proven to cause more problems than it solves. Supporters of drug illegalization claim that it reduces crime, drug use and, most importantly, that it works; unfortunately, it simply doesn’t.
Under prohibition the rate of violence, crime and death increase. The most prominent indicator of this fact is the rise of organized crime which thrives on the black market sale of illegal drugs. Criminal syndicates vie for power among each other leading to murders, drive-by shootings, violent territorial disputes, extortion, etc. Consequently, it is no surprise that the homicide rate increases during prohibition. It is interesting to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs; in 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed; in 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100, 000.1 Shortly after the 18th amendment was repealed the crime and homicide rates began to steadily decline. Drug-related death also witnesses an increase during prohibition, which is rather bizarre considering the nature of drug illegalization is to eliminate use and possession of drugs. Unfortunately, with the criminal element in control of the only supply of drugs problems begin to arise. With no liability or responsibility to their “customers”, drug lords worry only about their profits. If that means the heroin has some impurities in it, then so be it. Cutting corners as such, sadly, increases the chances of users dying while they inject, snort, consume, inhale, or otherwise indulge in their drug. Mysteriously, illegalization does not inflate the price of drugs. Over the years, the cost and price of drugs has declined making it easier and cheaper for a first time user to find a source of drugs. Again, this is contrary to the goal of prohibition which seeks to eliminate availability of such drugs. Part of that goal is forcing dealers to increase their prices (hopefully out of the range of any potential users) because of the rising cost and risk of getting drugs into the country. Regardless, even if that aspect of illegalization worked it is flawed. As the price of drugs goes up, users commit more crimes to fund their purchases.2 This isn’t to say that dealers are slashing prices and making less of a profit; in fact, the profit a drug dealer makes off the sale of a single drug is enormous. In 2001, a kilogram of heroin in Pakistan sold for an average of $610; the UN reports that in the US in 2001, heroin cost an average of $25,000 per kilogram.3 As is easily seen, the profit to be made selling drugs is a rather lucrative deal for a poor guy living in the slums. Speaking of massive profits, according to the United Nations, profits in illegal drugs are so inflated that three-quarters of all drug shipments would have to be intercepted to seriously reduce the profitability of the business; current efforts only intercept 13% of heroin shipments and 28%-40% of cocaine shipments. To put that in consistent perspective, three-quarters is equivalent to 75%. 13% does not equal 75%. 40% does not equal 75%. It would appear that something isn’t working.
The goal to reduce crime has not been achieved and neither has the goal to reduce usage or availability. The most common reason for this put forward is the forbidden fruit theory. That is to say that if something is denied to you, you will want it even more. Drugs are mysterious, pleasurable, but denied and that fosters rebellion and encourages experimentation. The Netherlands, a country with more relaxed drug laws than the US has fewer drug users than our nation. 32.9% of Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis; this is twice as high as the Netherlands’ figures. As for cocaine, the percentage of the general population who has used cocaine at some point is 10.5% in the US, five times higher than in the Netherlands.4 It is, however, entirely possible that this is due to a completely different cultural attitude towards drugs and lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, arrests for drug law violations have increased dramatically over the years. In 1973, there were 328,670 arrests logged in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for drug law violations; in 2004, that number rose to 1,745,712 arrests for drug law violations logged in the UCR.5 Perhaps this increase is due to population growth or the enactment of extremely strict laws? The population did not quintuple in 30 years and there is no law so strict that could warrant the arrest of nearly six times as many people. Despite the answer to the problem, the number of arrests should be decreasing over time; this would reflect the reduced availability and indulgence in drugs. Unfortunately, usage and availability have not decreased but increased. Fact.6
Finally, there remain the issues of the cost, utter hypocrisy and danger that prohibition poses. Currently prohibition requires nearly $17 billion on the federal level. Combine that with local and state expenditures on the “War on Drugs” and the total amount reaches $30 billion per year.7 The cost of prohibition has been fairly consistent since 1990, just to give an idea of how much money the United States has spent over the years. That’s $30 billion that could have been given back to the taxpayers and reinvested into the economy or used for other purposes. As mentioned before, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people being arrested. Now with mandatory sentencing, many of those people end up in prison. What does this mean for prisons? It means that they are, for the most part, made up of drug law offenders and that compromises need to be made. As it stands, the offenders have to spend time in prison; thus, only two options are left – spend tax dollars to create new prisons or push other prisoners out early to make room for drug offenders.8 Unfortunately, both have had to happen. Yet, the hypocrisy lingers. The whole driving force behind prohibition is that drugs are malevolent and that they endanger other people– a lot of other lifestyle choices do that as well. Most notably, tobacco, alcohol and poor diet/physical inactivity rank extremely high on the leading causes of death in the United States – they’re numbers one, two and three, respectively.9 Where’s illicit drug use? Right after sexual behaviors, incidents involving firearms, car crashes, toxic agents and microbial agents.10 Perhaps we should prohibit as many of these activities as we can to protect ourselves from our own choices or maybe we should just legalize drugs and let people be responsible for their decisions. Sadly, personal responsibility seems to be some ancient relic lost in the sands of time to big government and higher taxes. There remains, however, one final issue that must be addressed – if most of our law enforcement resources are being diverted towards drug-law offenders then what about those criminals who commit violent crimes? This is a rather dangerous strategy. Is the previously mentioned increase in the homicide rate brought on by the lack of police resources or by the increase in gang violence? Does the answer matter? Each outcome leads to a greater answer – prohibition doesn’t work.
Prohibition of any product in demand is doomed to fail. Basic economics dictate that if the demand for a certain product is great enough, someone will step in to supply it. In the case of prohibition, the black market nonchalantly offers its services to consumers. It is amazing though that the War on Drugs has managed to carry on despite its numerous shortcomings. One would hope that when a policy has been shown to be ineffective and weak that it would be removed or fixed; apparently, this is not the case. Alcohol prohibition was a failure; it increased the crime rate, cost taxpayers millions, infringed on personal freedoms, and – to top it all off – it didn’t even manage to reduce consumption; it did, however, manage to increase it. Of course, our prohibition of drugs today is a complete success; not a single parallel can be drawn between the illegalization of alcohol in the 1920s to the illegalization of drugs today. On second thought…