Drug Prohibition in the United States

The so called ‘War on Drugs' is both irrational and immoral. The United States continual dedication to it wastes over $40 billion a year while ruining lives in the process. The sole purpose of the United States government is a form of collectivism that is supposed to protect the rights of each individual: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The implementation of the ‘War on Drugs' blatantly disregards all three, but especially one's pursuit of happiness. By prohibiting an individual from using a substance, a government is preventing that person's pursuit of happiness. Whether or not the substance will make the individual happier is irrelevant. It is not the proper function of a United States government to decide what makes an individual happy, instead only to protect an individual's pursuit of what makes him happy. Essentially, in establishing drug prohibition, the government assumes responsibility and determination of each individual's pursuit of happiness. One of the reasons, proponents argue, that drug prohibition was established, or at least still remains, is to protect children. Children are too innocent and immature to understand the consequences of drugs; therefore drugs need to be prohibited to prevent children's access to them. The fallacy of this logic is that it is nearly impossible, especially if drugs are illegal, to completely keep drugs away from children. With a current budget of $20 billion per year, the DEA estimates that it only confiscates 5%-10% of illegal drugs entering the country. Unless there is a substantial DEA budget increase, there will always be a black market for drugs in the United States. In a black market, a government has absolutely no regulation over the marketing strategy or distribution of a product. Drug dealers can market and distribute drugs wherever, whenever, and to whomever they want. Children, because they are too innocent and immature to understand the consequences, are the easiest consumers for drug dealers to target, especially in poor urban neighborhoods. A better way to keep drugs away from children is regulation rather than prohibition. For example, since cigarette companies were prohibited from selling and advertising to children, cigarette use has decreased dramatically. Children were educated about the dangers of smoking, and cigarettes became harder for children to obtain, thus reducing the number of children smoking. A national pole taken from middle and high school students indicated that it is easier to obtain marijuana than alcohol or cigarettes. Drug prohibition does not protect children; it actually promotes situations for drug dealers and criminals to take advantage of them. It is argued that since drugs have such negative effects, drug prohibition is necessary to prevent their use. The negative effects of drugs are well known to everyone. Certain drugs can cause heart failure, brain damage, even death, among other things. If this isn't enough to prevent a person from using drugs, why would the possibility of a jail sentence be a deterrent? Obviously, if the drug itself won't prevent an individual from using a drug neither will the threat of a prison sentance. According to an ONDCP survey in 2001, 20% of 18-25 year olds had smoked pot, while only 1.2% had used cocaine. The illicit status of cocaine and marijuana were nearly the same throughout the country in 2001, so what accounted for the discrepancy? The effects of marijuana are much less severe that those of cocaine, explaining why marijuana is more widely used than cocaine. This indicates that drug laws are less of a deterrent than a specific drug's effect. Some argue that the negative effects of certain drugs include increased risk of criminal behavior. Cocaine, heroine, and marijuana supposedly create a sense of disillusion and distort reality in such a way that creates lapses in judgment of the user. Assuming that certain drugs do cause criminal behavior, although many including myself are skeptical, prohibition causes even worse criminal behavior. The black market is a completely free market with no regulation, contract enforcement, or property laws. Essentially, in the absence of any law enforcement, anarchy is formed. Property laws, regulation and contracts must be enforced by each individual. This underground market creates astronomical amounts of crime that is many times worse than that which would occur from the result of the drug itself. Alcohol prohibition is a good example of this. Many can respect the effort of the Temperance Movement to lower alcohol use, which can coincidentally be compared to the modern day ‘War on Drugs.' Alcohol is addictive,can create social and family problems, and can increase criminal behavior by causing disillusion in the user. But the experiment of alcohol prohibition proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, even though Americans consumed less alcohol, crime was rampant throughout the country. The overall effects of alcohol consumption was insignificant compared to social problems caused by crime during prohibition, which is why the 21st amendment negated alcohol prohibition entirely. Drug prohibition may not have the extreme effects of alcohol prohibition, but the effects are significant nonetheless, especially in poor urban neighborhoods with economical problems. Furthermore, there is no congressional authority for the United States government to regulate, much less prohibit, any substance, via the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution….. are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This is why the 18th amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol. If an amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol production and usage why isn't one necessary to prohibit drug usage? In summary, drug prohibition is an utter failure and unconstitutional, and should be revoked immediately. The targeting of children and destruction of poor neighborhoods by the illegal drug market, the cost in billions of dollars to taxpayers, and the lives ruined from prison terms for non-violent crimes more than overwhelms the slight possibility of higher drug usage in America.