Drugs_in_America

Sean Michael Casey SAGES USSO 285Y Professor Leukart 3rd December, 2009 Among several controversial topics the American public discusses, the actions taken against the use of drugs and the economics of the drug industry seem to rise up above the others as one of the most prominent. Drugs, ranging from marijuana to cocaine to heroin to over the counter drugs, are the subject of movies, books, news reports, and many other key facets of the American lifestyle. Hollywood deals extensively in drug based and drug related movies, as do members of the music and arts industry, particularly rap and rock and roll. As such, it is crucial that America faces the issue head-on, and takes a firm stance on how to properly handle the use and distribution of drugs in America. I believe that the use of all narcotics should be legalized in the United States because of the crime caused by illegal use and distribution of drugs, the economic impact of the drug industry on cities and communities, and the social implications of allowing users to continue to exercise their civil rights as free American citizens. We begin by looking at the laws surrounding the use of narcotics and other addictive (and non-addictive) drugs. On October 27th, 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, allowing the federal government to accept petitions from companies to interest groups to place a substance on a controlled substance list, giving the federal government the power to regulate the production, distribution, and/or sales of these substances (Controlled Substance Act 1970). The act itself stems from a larger, more global idea. The United States obliged itself to ban certain substances by signing key international treaties, in particular the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics, which called for the control of amphetamines, opiates, methadone, and many other hard drugs (United States of America). By passing the Controlled Substance Act (CSA from here on out), the government gained legal right to begin controlling these narcotics and other drugs. The next step is to analyze why such an act needed to be passed at all. In the 1961 Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs, the committee addressed certain key facts that support their reasons for controlling/banning certain substances. “_The Conference,_ Recommends that the Parties: Should bear in mind that drug addiction is often the result of an unwholesome social atmosphere in which those who are most exposed to the danger of drug abuse live; Should do everything in their power to combat the spread of the illicit use of drugs; Should develop leisure and other activities conducive to the sound physical and psychological health of young people.” (United States of America) These arguments remain valid today in many ways. However, the importance of certain items seems outdated, and to a degree, somewhat hypocritical today. To begin with, the committee basically states that it remains a function of the government to protect their people from becoming drug addicts. Meanwhile, in the same passage, they state that it is the job of the individual in society to find other means of entertainment and other activities to engage themselves in. Chiefly, though, is the key argument made in line one of the recommendations to the parties: that drug use and sale is often the result of poor socioeconomic standing and/or a bad neighborhood economy. In these communities, crime tends to be a crucial factor. There are several reasons for crime to be such a key factor in poor communities: the business of dealing the illegal drugs in use remains inherently risky as gangs sell their goods on the street while police attempt to prevent transactions, the sale of drugs produces more money than working a nine to five job, local jobs have dried up, and there are fewer ways to make money. Because of the poor economic and social standing of the neighborhoods that the gangs inhabit, drug dealing seems to be the most lucrative option, since there will always be a market for drugs. Therefore, in these poor areas, the highest tangible thing one can aspire to become is a drug dealer. However, the odds of becoming a real profit making drug dealer are about as good as becoming a successful actor in Hollywood. As a boss, it is easy to make a decent six figure salary (tax free of course since it is illegal). Yet, the boss’ three officers only make $2100 a month combined, while all of the foot soldiers, i.e. regular gang members, make a combined total of $7400 (Dubner). Also, the potential of becoming a boss leads to several key issues. The biggest issue arising from the quest to become a boss comes from the individual gang member’s need to show himself off, to prove his worth to the gang, often through violence. However, the violence cuts both ways. It costs the boss money as he must compensate his soldiers for the increased risk by paying them more. In addition, he must pay the families of those killed to compensate for their loss as they died for his cause. These compensation costs cut into his profits from dealing drugs. By legalizing the use of drugs, particularly ones that are not particularly harmful such as marijuana, resources could be redirected within law enforcement as large sums of money are no longer spent arresting and processing individuals for possession or sale of drugs (Schlosser 73). Legalization would allow law enforcement to instead focus on other key crimes such as theft, homicides, and the black market for weapons. It would also allow the price of drugs to fall to somewhat reasonable levels and allow suppliers to stop hiding, allowing them freedom to spend more money freely, in turn boosting the US economy (see graph A). It may also help in cutting back on law enforcement expenditures as a whole since the business would be federally regulated by FDA officials rather than local law enforcement or DEA members, saving the taxpayers money, which also allows for economic growth, as aggregate demand increases with a decrease in taxes (see Graph A). In addition, one can argue that it is best for there to be less government overall. With the legalization of drugs, the DEA could be reduced in size since the FDA would take charge of drugs as they move onto the legal market for consumption by the American public. This helps in “[limiting] the power which the ruler[s] should be suffered to exercise over the community,” and decreasing the overall interference by the government in the individual’s lives. This represents a key principal on which the United States was founded; the US formed because its citizens were dissatisfied with the British government, which saw itself fit to station troops in civilian’s homes, tax them without representation, and generally invade their lives. In many regards, the DEA and other local law enforcement interfere in the daily lives of individuals in the same way, but in the name of public safety. By legalizing drugs and cutting down the DEA, the United States could cut down on this interference to the lives of its citizens and maintain the principals on which this country was founded. This is not to say that there should be a wide-spread propagation of drug use, or its encouragement to the people of the United States of America. Drugs do hinder the ability to think, and cause harm to our bodies when taken in large quantities, as do many other substances. An overdose of Aspirin can be just as deadly as injecting yourself with too much heroin. Primarily, police need to enforce more strict traffic laws with regards to driving under the influence. On the road, a user is dangerous as his judgment is impaired, much like a drunk driver. Similar laws should be enacted for operating machinery or using a firearm. However, private use should be allowed, particularly at home. It is understandable to avoid using drugs in public, or even banning use in public altogether (an issue I feel is best left to local governments rather than federal). “Licenses … could be required in order to sell or distribute non-prescription recreational drugs,” effectively allowing the government to regulate drugs in the market much like it does liquor (Sieberg 99). As such, there are numerous ways to incorporate drugs safely and smoothly into the American lifestyle so long as certain precautions are taken, much like the laws regarding alcohol. By acting rationally around the use of drugs, America can successfully integrate this business into the American society and economy. The gains to the US economy will help promote growth through the creation of a new legal industry, and the decrease in crime due to a decrease in illegal activity will help promote local growth and aid failing neighborhoods in their recoveries. In addition, it will allow American citizens to retain their inherent right to practice what they wish so long as it does not harm others in the process. As such, the United States of America should repeal the Controlled Substance Act and allow the use of drugs, and in its place pass local laws to restrict where such drugs may be used to protect the public but allow private usage. Works Cited Chaloupka, Frank J., Michael Grossman, Warren K. Bickel, and Henry Saffer, eds. The Economic Analysis of Substance Use and Abuse An Integration of Econometric and Behavioral Economic Research (National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report). New York: University Of Chicago, 1999. Print. Greenfield, Harry I. Invisible, outlawed, and untaxed America's underground economy. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 1993. Print. Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print. Mill, John S. On Liberty. Fordham. 20 Apr. 2007 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/jsmill-lib.html. "Resolution III." Proc. of Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, New York, USA, New York. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1961_en.pdf. Schlosser, Eric. Reefer Madness Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003. Print. Sieberg, Katri K. Criminal dilemmas understanding and preventing crime. Berlin: Springer, 2001. Print. United States. Cong. House. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy. Combating Drug Abuse and Drug-Related Crime: What is Working in Baltimore' 110th Cong., 1st sess. H. Rept. Serial No. 110-69. Web. 22 Oct. 2009. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi'dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:44006.pdf. United States of America. Drug Enforcement Administration. 21 USC Part B - Authority To Control. Web. http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa/811.htm#b.