Rocco D’Ambrosca: 11/11/2008
The United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual liberty, democracy, and that all men would be created equal before the law. During the Constitutional Convention of the summer of 1776 there was debate over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in addition to the main articles of the Constitution itself. There were many delegates and states who would not sign the Constitution in approval unless there would be a Bill of Rights attached. Many delegates also signed the Constitution only under the promise that there would be a Bill of Rights added later. The first ten amendments to the Constitution would come to be called the Bill of Rights.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution that came to be called the Bill of Rights included the following:
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition. Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms. Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops. Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel. Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people. (U.S. Bill of Rights).
All of these rights are extremely important and many battles have been won and rights protected solely because of these ten amendments or Bill of Rights. However, one liberty that the United States Government and her states have ignored is the civil right to consume particular substances, namely illegal drugs. The closest amendment in the Bill of Rights that would protect this liberty or freedom is the ninth amendment, stating that there is a protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Personally, this is the most obvious form of support for drug legalization. Of all rights that could possibly be protected under the ninth amendment, that isn’t specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, would have to be the right to consume whatever you wanted into your own body. You would think that this would be a very basic right. We have the right to say and read whatever we want and even carry guns but we can’t consume certain substances for our own good? Does the state claim ownership over our own bodies? Clearly something is not right.
In the early years specific drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and eventually marijuana were made illegal based on types of tax laws and other indirect means. It wasn’t until 1970 with the implementation of the Controlled Substances Act by Richard Nixon and The United States Congress that drug policy was truly implemented (CSA). The Controlled Substances Act lists specific drugs into a hierarchy of schedules or categories from most harmful at Schedule I, all the way down to Schedule V (CSA). Drugs such as cannabis, magic mushrooms, peyote, mescaline, heroin, and LSD are all listed as Schedule I drugs with no medical value and a high potential for abuse (CSA). Cannabis has been largely challenged as a Schedule I drug as medical marijuana has become a very helpful and viable option for sick people. Schedule II includes drugs such as cocaine, morphine, and opium as they are listed to have medical value (CSA). The schedules continue on to Schedule V drugs which have the lowest level for potential abuse and also have a medical value (CSA). Of important note is the complete absence of a Constitutional Amendment to legitimize the CSA as required for the prohibition of alcohol, a precedent that has been totally ignored and legally unexplained.
The Drug Enforcement Agency or DEA has been responsible for enforcing drug law and preventing the smuggling, production, and use of drugs in and outside of the United States (DEA). The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was formed by Richard Nixon on July 1st, 1973 (DEA). The DEA has a list of ten claims that they state as reasons for the continued fight against illegal drugs after almost forty years of a costly never ending battle. The ten claims will be listed in full and then addressed separately. The ten claims are as follows:
Claim I – Crime, Violence and Drug Use Go Hand-in-Hand. Claim II – We Have Made Significant Progress in Reducing Drug Use in this Country. Now Is Not the Time to Abandon Our Efforts. Claim III – Legalization of Drugs Will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Addiction Levels. Claim IV – Any Revenues Generated by Taxing Legalized Drugs Would Quickly Evaporate in Light of the Increased Social Costs. Claim V – There Are No Compelling Medical Reasons to Prescribe Marijuana or Heroin to Sick People. Claim VI – Legalization and Decriminalization of Drugs Have Been a Dismal Failure in Other Nations. Claim VII – Alcohol Has Caused Significant Health, Social and Crime Problems in this Country, and Legalized Drugs Would Only Make the Situation Worse. Claim VIII – Drug Control Spending Is a Minor Portion of the U.S. Budget, and Compared to the Costs of Drug Abuse, Spending Is Minuscule. Claim IX – Drug Prohibition Is Working. Claim X – Drug Legalization Would Have an Adverse Effect on Low-Income Communities. (Ten Claims).
These ten claims are their best argument against drug legalization, their defense of the standing drug laws, and the need for their existence as an agency.
Their first claim that crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand can easily be disputed. The best example to cite is America’s experimentation with alcohol prohibition. When a drug is put under prohibition the demand for it does not go away. This was also the case with alcohol. The alcohol market went underground and became a criminal enterprise. Al Capone and other gangsters and criminal groups made enormous profits off of illegal alcohol distribution just as millions of people are across the country at this very moment. The crime and violence that accompanies the drug trade is directly created by its illegality. If the drugs were legal they would be available at every corner store just like liquor and would not be part of gang wars for drug selling territory. The other claim that specific drugs cause violence such as crack, cocaine, amphetamines, and PCP is weakly supported by evidence and also has no barring as a reason for their illegality because alcohol is not included (Claim I). No drug has more of a correlation to violence and aggressive behavior than alcohol, but it is freely available for sale while harmless drugs like cannabis are illegal. If the reason for drug prohibition was truly to prevent crimes and violence alcohol would be included. This can also be said about the argument that these drugs are dangerous and can kill you when alcohol, tobacco, aspirin and even caffeine are lethal while nonlethal drugs such as cannabis, magic mushrooms, LSD, mescaline and peyote are illegal.
The second claim that significant progress has been made couldn’t be further from the truth. The numbers regarding personal use statistics in the United States are a very poor means to gauge the effectiveness of the DEA or even to measure the actual amount of drug use in the United States. The reason for this is that personal drug use statistics are based almost completely on voluntary survey information which is hardly a solid or reliable means of quantifying use as many surveyed will lie about use out of privacy, fear, or embarrassment. The best way to measure the effectiveness of the DEA is the monetary efficiency of the agency. The DEA has continued to gain substantial increases in funding with a total of 2.415 billion U.S. Dollars in 2006 (DEA). This funding can be compared directly to the agencies impact of the drug trade.
In 2005, the DEA seized a reported $1.4 billion in drug trade related assets and $477 million worth of drugs.However, according to the White House’s Office of Drug Control Policy, the total value of all of the drugs sold in the U.S. is as much as $64 billion a year, making the DEA’s efforts to intercept the flow of drugs into and within the U.S. less than 1% effective. (DEA).
This is clearly one of the most monetarily inefficient, wasteful, and ineffective agencies within the United States Government that anyone with any reason could clearly see as not being cost effective. The truth of the matter is that after almost forty years of combating the drug trade a dent has not been made by any means and demand for these drugs has done anything but go away. The DEA argues that they have put pressure on the trade and made it more difficult to traffic drugs leading to a possible increase in prices. However, demand for the drugs is not dependent on price and the drugs will continue to sell despite the price (DEA). The only sensible option at this point would be to tax and regulate the substances in an effort to gain back all of the billions of dollars wasted in a futile attempt to stop something for which there will always be a demand. The best option would be to try and gain some revenue off of the trade to support drug education, prevention, and treatment programs as well as a slew of other services the country would be able to provide such as national health care from the tax revenue of a 64 billion dollar a year industry and the countless millions saved from prosecution and incarceration (DEA).
The third claim that legalization would increase use and addiction levels are scarcely to be supported (Claim III). The argument that having drugs legalized would send a message that the drugs are acceptable and encourages their use, is an example of faulty reasoning, as it is not the case with alcohol or tobacco. Just because they are legal does not mean that they are encouraged to be used, if anything it’s the opposite, tobacco use has continued to decrease due to better education despite it being completely legal and available. (Claim III). The case that legalization would increase use is completely destroyed by the evidence in countries where legalization has occurred. For example, the amount of teenage marijuana use in Amsterdam where it is widely available for legal sale is one-quarter the use of teenagers in America, a very powerful statistic (Claim III). In many cases it can be that legalization will deter use because it is not as cool or exciting because it is legal and not a taboo.
The fourth claim that revenues generated by taxing the drugs would quickly evaporate because of increased social costs has absolutely no standing. As stated before, the criminalization of these substances has had absolutely no bearing on use and demand of them. If people want the drugs they will use them regardless of their legal status or price. If those who want to use the drugs are using them now they will continue using them if they became legal, creating an already established market that would produce tax revenues without increase to social cost. The claim that these revenues would evaporate is absurd because these people are using them right now and have no intention of stopping. If anything the increased production and easier availability under legal status would allow them to obtain it cheaper and safer. The comment about social costs is also unfounded. If anything the social costs would be minimal as many people will not start doing drugs such as heroin or cocaine just because they became legal. The possible side effect of legalizing a drug such as cannabis for example would be that many would use it as a safe recreational drug alternative to alcohol as many do now; having a positive impact on society. But at the very least, whatever tax revenue was produced, it would be much better than sending all the money to the criminal markets that produce, sell, and distribute the drugs at present.
The fifth claim that there is no medical value in marijuana or heroin is a bold flat out lie. Marijuana has continually been proven to have substantial medical value and has been approved for medical use in many states throughout America. Medical marijuana has been accepted and proven to be very effective for both cancer and HIV patients in reducing depression, nausea, and weight loss from chemotherapy (Cannabis). The Food and Drug Administration has actually approved marijuana as a treatment for cancer and the symptoms of HIV and Influenza (Cannabis). “Scientists in Italy have shown through studies that cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical found in marijuana, inhibits growth of cancer cells in animals.” (Cannabis). This kind of research could actually lead to a cure for cancer and cancer prevention methods. Medical marijuana has also shown great promise in treating glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and obsessive compulsive disorder (Cannabis). Medical marijuana is also used largely as a pain medicine and is praised for its ability to not completely numb out the patient but allow them to be alert and actually be able to enjoy life rather than tolerate it. Heroin is almost identical to morphine which is used medically on a daily basis just as many opiates are in the form of prescription pills such as oxycodone. If morphine and oxycodone are used medically it would be a complete lie to say that heroin has no medical value.
The sixth claim that legalization and decriminalization has been a failure has already been addressed to be nonsense and can be proven false time and time again with the extremely low drug use in countries where the substances have become legal compared to America where these substances are still illegal (Claim III).
The seventh claim that drug legalization would only add to the health, social, and criminal problems in the country is hard to support. As stated before the fact of the drugs becoming legal would not increase use and therefore would not add to the health, social, and criminal problems. Also, as stated before the connection of drugs and crime only exists because of the illegal nature of the drugs and would largely disappear once the drugs became legal. The problems of alcohol are also completely unrelated to those of other drugs. For example, as mentioned before, cannabis is a much safer alternative to alcohol and is used as such now. The legalization of cannabis could only add to the number of people willing to use cannabis as an alternative that produces no aggression, violence, crime, dependence, death, or physical addiction.
Another major point that is ignored in the seventh claim is that right now by having these drugs as illegal substances, they are not regulated by any agency. If the drugs were legalized they would undoubtedly be regulated by the FDA and would have to pass standards of purity and quality. Right now anything can be sold as anything with no care given to the safety of the substance or its purity. The other benefit of legalization would be that it would make it harder for children and teenagers to obtain it. It is much easier for a child or teen to get cannabis than it is to get alcohol for one major reason, drug dealers don’t ID the buyer. If cannabis and other substances were sold in stores, not only would they be much safer because of regulation, they would be harder to get because they would be subject to age restrictions just as tobacco and alcohol, ending the present free-for-all underground drug market. Just like the alcohol prohibition the substance becomes more dangerous, like moonshine, and subject to unregulated criminal markets.
The eighth claim that drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget and that it is miniscule compared to treatment can be lumped with the ninth claim that drug prohibition is working. Both of these claims, eight and nine, have already been addressed and are wildly untrue. The amount currently spent is 2.415 billion U.S. Dollars compared to the 64 billion dollar yearly drug trade. As stated before, barely a dent in the market and could hardly be stated as a victory in the drug war or that the war is working or will ever truly substantially lower drug use, production, distribution, or demand. The amount that would be spent on treatment is a joke compared to all of the money that not only the DEA spends on a yearly basis but also all of the tax dollars that go to police departments, state departments, prisons, and the judiciary to arrest, process, prosecute, and incarcerate all of the offenders, many of which are nonviolent. Programs would undoubtedly be implemented in the event of legalization to create better education and prevention. Above all with legalization the drugs would be safer and cheaper, removing the crime and health risks as many people will simply be able to buy the drugs themselves to maintain their habits and not need forced treatment or imprisonment at public cost.
The final claim that drug legalization would have a negative effect on low-income communities is also in error. The first problem with this claim is that it assumes only low-income citizens use drugs. This is grossly untrue as drug users come from every walk of life and every profession. There are cocaine using Wall Street executives, crack smoking mayors, and cannabis smoking middle class adults. Drugs do not discriminate and neither should the DEA. The legalization of drugs actually has the potential to benefit the low-income communities, as it has the potential to lower the crime and gang activity in these communities that is so closely related to the drug trade. Without an illegal drug trade the crime in these areas would greatly reduce, creating a positive effect on these communities rather than the negative effect falsely predicted by the DEA.
Overall, the case for having controlled substances is extremely weak and not supported by the evidence of the past decades in the drug war. Man has used substances since the dawn of time to alter his consciousness and will always continue to do so. It is man’s God given right to consume whatever substances he pleases without the restraint from a tyrannical government. No government has the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their body. Any attempt at controlling someone’s use of their body borders on ownership of that person and is the greatest violation of civil liberty.
Works Cited:
“Cannabis (drug).” Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008. Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cannabis_(drug)#medical_use>.
“Claim I: Crime, Violence and Drug Use Go Hand-In-Hand.” Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 10 Nov. 2008. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 10 Nov. 2008 <http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/dea/pubs/legaliz/claim1.htm>.
“Claim III: Legalization of Drugs Will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Addiction Levels.” Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 10 Nov. 2008. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 10 Nov. 2008 <http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/dea/pubs/legaliz/claim3.htm>.
“Controlled Substances Act.” Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008. Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/controlled_substances_act>.
“Drug Enforcement Administration.” Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008. Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/drug_enforcement_administration>.
“The Ten Claims.” Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 10 Nov. 2008. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 10 Nov. 2008 <http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/dea/pubs/legaliz/claims.htm>.
“United States Bill of Rights.” Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008. Wikipedia. 10 Nov. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/united_states_bill_of_rights>.
RoccoJoe.com 