Pubdate: Thu, 29 Nov 2012
Source: Iowa State Daily (IA Edu)
Copyright: 2012 Iowa State Daily
Contact:  http://www.iowastatedaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1227
Author: Dristen Daily

SHOULD DRUGS BE LEGALIZED?

Should all drugs be legalized?

What about marijuana?

With the recent legalization of recreational use of marijuana in
Colorado and Washington the larger issue of the legalization of all
drugs in the United States has come into question.

Supporters who voted to take measures to legalize marijuana in these
states argue that legalization will generate tax revenue, decrease
black market activity by moving trade into the public sphere, and
alleviate the waste of tax resources being used by law enforcement.
Furthermore, supporters, such as voters - typically younger and more
liberal - who just voted in favor of legalizing weed in Washington and
Colorado, say that current drug enforcement unfairly targets
minorities and that current laws (those similar to Prohibition) will
ultimately lead to greater crimes due to the demand for illegal drugs.

However, those that oppose the legalization of drugs say that
criminalizing recreational drugs helps lower rates of use and abuse,
which decreases related addictions and problems.

These voters tend to be older and more conservative.

The question, then, is: Given this argument, would the United States
be better off legalizing the use of all recreational drugs?

To explore the implications and issues surrounding the legalization of
drugs a debate on the motion "Legalize Drugs" was held by a panel of
experts on Intelligence Squared U.S. Profiles of the panel experts can
be found in the article "Should We Legalize Drugs?" written by NPR
staff. Those arguing for the motion included Paul Butler, criminal law
scholar and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nick
Gillespie, editor-in-chief of the online and television platforms for
the libertarian magazine Reason. Those arguing against the motion
included the former chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Asa
Hutchinson, and Theodore Dalrymple, retired prison doctor and
psychiatrist.

To frame the debate the founder of Intelligence Squared U.S., Robert
Rosenkranz, explained that those in favor of legalization have a
strong argument because the current policy and "War on Drugs" has failed.

When explaining the supporters' opinion Rosenkranz said, "We'd be
better off placing reliance on treatment, on rehabilitation, on
education. ... The costs of creating a criminal industry are huge; not
only the obvious costs of enforcement, of prison, but we create a
situation in which the leading role models in inner city communities
are drug dealers in which a disproportionate number of black youth
languish away in prisons."

He went on explain the opposition's argument which is that the choice
of using recreational drugs cannot be left up to the individual
because the consequences of drug use are too great, and the individual
can have a huge impact on society, so the choice should be regulated
by the government.

Ultimately, the winners of the debate were Butler and Gillespie,
supporters of the motion, with a victory of 58 to 30 percent. (The
remainder was undecided.) Personally, I would agree with the
supporters of the motion given the argument.

However, both sides raised several important concerns.

One of the main tenets of the debate was the racial issues and
prejudices in drug enforcement. Butler, a former prosecutor, told his
personal testimony of his experience with drug enforcement in the
community. He said, "Maybe my work as a prosecutor would've been worth
the enormous social cost if it was getting drugs off the street, but
we all know the war on drugs doesn't do that. No country has ever
found a way to prevent people from using drugs.

The United States locks up more people than any country in the history
of the world." "We have 5 percent of the world's population and 25
percent of the world's prisoners.

It costs us billions of dollars that we just cannot afford, and it's
just as easy to get drugs now as it always has been." Butler went on
to discuss the disparity between black and white incarceration rates,
which are unfairly higher for blacks.

Of course, not all of these incarcerations are drug related, but
approximately one-quarter of criminals in U.S. jails or prisons have
been convicted of a drug offense (Prisons & Drug Offenders). In
addition to this, the legalization of marijuana was widely debated.
Interestingly, the opposition argued that if marijuana is legalized
across all 50 states, all other drugs would have to be legalized.

Asa Hutchinson, who is opposed to legalizing drugs, said, "This debate
is not about marijuana.

It is drugs, plural.

And to be consistent in your philosophy of libertarianism, which my
colleagues are consistent, they recognize it doesn't do any good to
legalize one. You have to legalize all... because that's the only way
you're going to change the environment of enforcement, to change the
environment of police and so on. And so the debate tonight is about
legalizing all drugs." Of course, this was the issue being debated -
the legalization of all drugs - but why not start with legalizing
marijuana in the states and see what the effects are before legalizing
all other recreational drugs? Traditionally the states have been
testing ground for policies before they are enacted at a federal
level, and Colorado and Washington have set a precedent for this
motion. Gillespie made a seemingly valid argument when he compared the
use of marijuana to alcohol consumption: "So when we are talking about
what drug legalization would look like, first off, it's all marijuana
use. Vanishingly small percentage of people use drugs other than
marijuana. But let me just say... There's not a single dimension
across which pot is more dangerous than alcohol, which is pretty much
all you need to know about a postprohibition American society." After
hearing the arguments and considering the implications of the motion,
is the legalization of marijuana okay? Should all recreational drugs
be legalized?

Is this "war" worth fighting, or are we merely facing a social reality
that should be legally accepted?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt