Drug Prohibition Essay, Research Paper

Chris Searls

Public Policy

Drug Prohibition

Under the United States Constitution the federal authorities is charged with the duties to protect our single, every bit good as collective, rights to life and autonomy. Often times this charge leads the assorted subdivisions of the federal authorities to make, implement, and enforce policy that is designed to protect society from itself. Baronial in it? s aspiration the consequence although non evident ab initio, sometimes does more to impede the rights of the citizens it is trying to protect, and/or the cost of making so becomes a higher monetary value than that of the cost that is being avoided. In this instance it is necessary to re-evaluate the state of affairs and research any options that may offer a more plumbable solution refering both protection of rights every bit good as the cost of so making.

& # 216 ; Introduction

In the late 1980? s the United States authorities made such policy and today the consequences have done small to decide the job and have left the state closer to the danger it sought to forestall. The policy is known as the? War on Drugs? . Initially the drug prohibition was, nevertheless idealistic, a valorous effort to free the state of this awful? enemy? . The aims were simple ; to enforce stiff punishments on those who use drugs outlined to be illicit, quell all to merchandise and commerce of such substances, and even to travel every bit far to forestall states with in our general boundary line locality from bring forthing and exporting these substances.

The illicit drug market, pre-drug war, is estimated to be a 100 billion dollar a twelvemonth concern. The federal authorities, since the get downing the war of drug, spends about 10 billion dollars a twelvemonth on drug enforcement bureaus and plans, and another estimated one hundred and ninety billion dollars a twelvemonth on look intoing drug related offenses, prosecution of alleged drug activities, and implementing penalties and/or imprisonment. That adds up to be a astonishing cost of two hundred billion dollars ( $ 770.00 per individual ) to try to forestall one hundred billion dollars worth of illicit drug usage. ( Evans and Berent ) Another effect of this questionable war lies in Opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is defined as the cost of chance lost in chase of another option. This cost analysis is relevant in the instance of the drug prohibition policy in that the resources use to implement the policy are limited, constabularies and prisons. The jurisprudence enforcement used in this? war of drugs? has their clip about monopolized by the approximative 30 to forty million people annually who purchase and usage drugs. This inherently go forthing assorted jurisprudence enforcement bureaus with less ability to face other offenses. Then there is the job of prisons. The infinite in the prisons is highly limited, and the cost of maintaining a individual in prison is astronomical in trapping to the bar being provided in mention to drug prohibition. The issue of limited prison infinite additions significance greatly when you consider an estimated sixty-percent of prison population is functioning clip on drug strong belief. In 1994 some seven hundred and 50 thousand people were arrested in drug related events. Of the seven hundred and 50 thousand people arrested, six hundred 1000 of them were charged with minor counts of ownership. ( Wink ) Other indexs that can be easy observed such as the rise in illicit drug usage by teens and kids reported the Drug Enforcement Agency. In fact merely 28 per centum of teens used illicit drug compared to a humongous 40 per centum in 1996. ( DEA/CDC ) The misallocation of resources is wholly draining and paralysing the full legal system that could be better targeted on a more productive docket. What does the policy of drug prohibition really promote? The statistics show a rise in offenses refering personal belongings ; drug maltreaters in hopes of back uping their drug wont committed 75 per centum of all belongings offenses such as burglary and robbery. Surveies have shown that out patient drug plans or plans that offered drugs for a lower cost drastically reduced the sum of offenses committed. ( Duke ) As of 1992 an estimated sixty million people have tried and or used marihuanas and there has yet to be one recorded decease attributed to o.d. . While it is estimated that 10 thousand people die from overdose of intoxicant yearly. This would take one to admit that possibly our sentiment drugs may be based in fright and societal criterion instead than in solid facts.

& # 216 ; The Goal

The optimum end of any policy is to protect our rights while promoting all the ideals of the society. The job occurs in the fact that is reasonably impossible to modulate single parts ( positive or negative ) to the state in any wide legislative sense. To more accurately explicate the complexness of the issue of drug prohibition it is pertinent to understand the difference of positive and negative autonomy. Positive autonomy is a autonomy that forces the authorities to supply a servic

vitamin E to its? citizens such as keeping a military or a national exchequer. A negative autonomy is the type of autonomy we most frequently refer, such as our first amendment rights. Negative autonomies prevent the federal authorities from interfering with certain rights for illustration freedom of address and freedom of imperativeness. Drug Prohibition is most closely classified as a positive autonomy because it forces the authorities to supply services to make and implement a drug free America. The difference between the two types of autonomies is important. Positive autonomy calls for the federal authorities to carry through a more significant function in single lives therefore it is believed for that ground the federal authorities should non give itself excessively many autonomies of this type. ( Peterson ) Finally one must step back and objectively inquire, ? should we retain our current policy stance refering illicit drugs, or is the current drug prohibition policy ineffective and counter productive? ? United States Judge William W. Schwarzer one time said, ? ? stoping drug usage is useless if in the procedure we lose our psyche? .

& # 216 ; Evaluation

The first measure in altering a policy is to measure it effects both positive and negative. To get down to measure a policy, one must be able to specify the parametric quantities of the policy being examined. The parametric quantities of the drug prohibition policy that will be investigated are the Untied States prohibition of drugs christened the war on drugs of 1989. This will include analyzing the effects this policy has had on society, on personal rights, the cost of execution ( monetarily and other wise ) , and of class the success and/or failure of drug prohibition policy.

& # 216 ; The Policy

United States President George Bush officially began his & # 8220 ; war on drugs & # 8221 ; in September 5, 1989. President Bush gave the first premier clip reference of his presidential term, on which he delineated the federal authorities & # 8217 ; s strategy for eliminating drug usage. This program would name for a about eight billion dollar budget from Congress, which added over two billion dollars to over the old twelvemonth? s budget. Of the about eight billion that Bush asked Congress to apportion, the program outlined that 70 per centum would travel to jurisprudence enforcement, which besides included a billion and a half for gaols. However, his proposal merely allocated 30 per centum to bar, instruction, and intervention. The Bush disposal sought to concentrate the brunt of his anti- drug run in the United States, which, to Bush, meant assailing and collaring the drug user, instead than concentrating on bar, instruction and intervention, or interdiction. Since the federal authorities has really limited constabulary resources, it would hold to enlist the combined cooperation of the provinces to accomplish success. States that did non follow with the Bush program would be penalized with a decrease in support from the federal authorities. ( Treaster )

& # 216 ; Effectss on Society

The effects on society are non minuscule like the authorities would hold you believe. Crime has risen exponentially since the 1989 when the? war of drugs? was foremost introduced. In the early 1900? s before the prohibition of so called illicit drugs diacetylmorphine and aspirin both were sold at about the same monetary value. In contrast today the monetary value of diacetylmorphine has sky rocketed to a monetary value of 50 dollars per gm compared to a mere 20 cents per gm, the cost of acetylsalicylic acid. ( Cundruff ) This type of rush in monetary value of illicit drugs have non reduced the demand of users to devour assorted illicit drugs, but has in bend promote them to rob, steal, and kill for them. Today there is about 1.7 million people captive and our slaying rate is near to twelve per one hundred thousand people. That is highest rate of imprisonment and one of the highest slaying rates in the universe. These are important Numberss sing that 60 per centum of the prison population has been jailed due to drug misdemeanors. In the 1980? s insouciant drug usage was chiefly in the in-between and upper-classes. Around 1985 that rate dropped a astonishing 22 per centum among the two categories, but rose exponentially in the poorer category. The innovation of drugs such as cleft cocaine, a cheaper version, began to race through the streets of the hapless vicinities. The sudden inflow of cheaper drugs led to creative activity of drug trusts, a rise of the figure of packs, and a contributed greatly to the general farther devastation of inter- metropolis bomber divisions. The rise in packs and drug-lords, that recruit people from every bit early as childhood, allure them into the high output universe of drug gross revenues, assuring them a high degree of life. These fortunes so promote kids and adolescents in these hapless vicinities to pretermit or wholly drop out of school, which leaves a mass group of people uneducated, unskilled, and perpetrating offense. All of these factors merely precede poorer communities

& # 216 ; Personal Rights

Prohibition at its? root is an assault on the rights of the citizens on which it is inflicted. The? war on drugs? is no exclusion. At the most basic of these rights are our unalienable rights to life and autonomy.