geocities.com
excerpt:
Sufficient data that drug prohibition benefits America does not exist. From a logical point of view, legalization has more supportive arguments than criminalization. James Ostrowski wrote asking for specific information on the benefits of drug prohibition.. He requested information from the head of the South Florida Drug Task Force, the Education Secretary, the Assistant Secretary of State for Drug Policy, the White House drug policy adviser, and the public information directors of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the General Accounting Office, the National Institute of Justice, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No response cited any study that showed the benefits of drug prohibition (Ostrowski 2). Supposedly, if drugs were legalized, the nation would see a sharp increase in drug use. While some people might shy away from illegal drug use simply because of the risk of being charged, most make the decision not to do drugs because of the effect they have on someone's health and lifestyle. Before the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 (which outlawed drug use) passed, less than one percent of the U.S. population abused drugs (Re-legalize 3). Since then, the increase in drug abuse disputes the idea that prohibition helps keep the substance abuse rate down. Prohibition could actually trigger a direct rise in drug use because illegal acts sometimes pose the tempting idea of "forbidden fruit" that teens and adolescents often pick (Ostrowski 2-3). People in the Netherlands and Alaska, where marijuana is legal in small amounts, actually consume less marijuana than people in the continental U.S. (Ostrowski 2). This shows that drug prohibition has an opposite effect on the use of drugs.
Legalization would put drug manufacturing into the hands of reputable companies that would create safe methods of drug use. The companies would be confronted with current responsibilities including the need for health restrictions, instructions, warnings, and quality control (Twelve Reasons 4). This makes the companies accountable and liable for any health problems related to dirty needles and other health problems related to street drugs. They would have dosage recommendations and would not risk unsafe street mixes (Re-legalize 1-2). Many street drugs contain other substances and unknown amounts of the drug. Substance abusers oftentimes do not know exactly what they take. Legalization would eliminate these dangers and provide safer means of use.
Along with providing safer drug use, the transfer of drug distribution from dealers to legal companies would all but destroy crime in the U.S. Forty percent of all crime relates to drugs (Twelve Reasons 1). Drugs link to forty percent of Chicago homicides (Re-legalize 1). In British Columbia, Asian "big gangs" associated with Vietnamese crime organizations make money by distributing marijuana (O'Neill 40). Vernia Brown, a nineteen year old mother, died by accident in a drug shoot-out in the Bronx, 1988 (Ostrowski 1). These crimes would not happen if drugs become legal. Because of the lack of motive, the homicide rate would decline. Organized crime would all but disappear. The Mafia's main income comes from selling heroin; Jamaican gangs sell crack, and the Medellin Cartel sell cocaine. These organizations would lose billions (Twelve Reasons 4). Of course, this would also have negative effects on world economy. Many countries' economy supports large illegal industries. Seven thousand homes in Vancouver grow marijuana and export it to the U.S. creating an almost $3.5 billion industry which could be British Columbia's third-largest industry (O'Neill 40). Mr. Finlayson, the vice president of Vancouver's business council policy, promotes the industry for the good of the country's economy: |
