Drug Legalization

Drug legalization is the more pragmatic and morally prudent option vs. criminalization. 1. The Right to Bodily Autonomy2. Alcohol's Legalization3. The War on Drug's Failure4. The War on Drug's Blowback5. Benefits of Legalization * * * In his work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill describes the Harm Principle, which holds the State should only limit the actions of individuals to prevent harming others. This was also expressed in France's Declaration of the Rights of Man, noting "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" [1]. Our Declaration of Independence guarantees similar provisions to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government allows for the concept of self-ownership, and for the individual to engage in practices that may be deemed immoral, unhealthy or unsafe. In some instances, it is even legally permissible to end one's life. Bodily autonomy has deep roots in Anglo-Saxon political theory. A citizen's right to autonomy and privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to perform certain acts, or subject themselves to certain experiences. The constitutional jurisprudence of bodily autonomy is reflected in the 4th Amendment, the Due Process clause of 14th Amendment, and subsequently in the statutory law regarding things like alcohol, sun tanning and fatty foods. All of these are dangerous and compromising to one's health, yet are still part of lucrative and legal industries. Some of our autonomous decisions impact others. The potential dangers of consuming alcohol, for example, extend to those in association or proximity with the consumer. Alcohol is measurably more dangerous than most illegal drugs. A study comparing 20 drugs based on 16 criteria (nine related to harms that a drug has on the individual, and seven pertaining to the harm of others) concludes that alcohol is arguably more dangerous than both heroin and crack cocaine [2]. This sentiment echoed by other research measures factors such as related injury, destruction of relationships, and varying rates of abuse and addiction. While it is difficult to compare the harms under totally equivalent circumstances, we do know that alcohol is extremely problematic. By nature, it is one of the drugs most likely to induce violence and physical harm [3]. However, the law provides for the responsible consumption of alcohol. Forbidding public drunkenness, driving under the influence of intoxication, and banning the consumption of alcohol under age 21 are examples of regulations intended to curb substance abuse, harm to others and general degeneracy. We also have legal provisions that protect those who might be impacted by alcohol consumption, while still respecting an individual's right to personal freedom. Everybody has the right to live free from aggression under any circumstance.In 1919, Congress ratified the 18th Amendment which prohibited the manufacturing, transportation and sale of alcohol within the U.S. In 1933, the law was repealed in response to the atrocious and unjustifiable ramifications. Prohibition failed to prevent or reduce drinking. It exacerbated other problems in society, such as facilitating organized crime, promoting government corruption, encouraging the production of dangerous alternatives (moonshine), leading to job loss, and many other harmful effects which negatively impacted society in both a monetary and cultural decline [4]. Similarly, the War on Drugs has been a massively expensive and counterproductive failure. Since its inception, the Drug War has cost American taxpayers well over one trillion dollars [5]. The impact has been nil. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world [6]. Criminalization has not deterred the use or sale of drugs in a significant way. Instead, it has made the U.S. the prison capital of the world. We have the highest prison population on the planet, with more than half of prison inmates incarcerated for drug related crimes [7]. This has widespread negative impacts on society overall, in terms of tax payer maintenance cost, increased rights violations, distrust in law enforcement, joblessness, etc.Americans spend an estimated $100 billion per year on illegal drugs [8]. Vicious cartels have dominated a black market plagued by corruption and incessant violence. Criminologists note that increases in murder and other violent crimes are specifically gang and drug-related [9]. People are not going to leave this much money on the table; the drug trade will always exist, and a black market trade means more violence, more corruption, more cost and more death. Drug legalization would eliminate most negative aspects of the black market. A legitimate industry could take over the manufacture and distribution of drugs, and afford those involved in the trade with safeguards and other contractual protections. Corporations (and government) would be able to engage profitably in the trade, as they would enjoy liability protections under existing tort law. Basic tort principles protect distributors from most side effects and subsequent injury. Under the law, assumption of risk arises when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of whatever harm is connected with their activity. If the plaintiff has assumed such a risk, they cannot recover damages for any harm resulting from the defendant's product.To show that assumed risk applies, the defendant must show that the plaintiff:- was aware of the risk, and- voluntarily took that danger upon themselves. In Saeter v. Harley Davidson, a man was injured in a motorcycle accident and attempted to recover against Harley for his injuries. While the motorcycle was deemed defective, Saeter was precluded from recovery under the doctrines of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. This case (and many others) demonstrates that where a consumer knows or has reason to know that a product could cause them harm, yet continues to use the product, they may not recover should the harm occur [10]. This should extend under drug legalization.Our judicial system is overwhelmed with prosecuting drug related crimes, while barely making a dent in combatting the drug trade. Our laws are virtually unenforceable, and when they are enforced, have a net negative impact on society overall. Taking down one drug king pin simply means the emergence of another. Many drug arrestees lose their job. Those with criminal records are 50% less likely to find a new job [11]. This perpetuates an underclass of people even after one has served their government penance. The impoverished inner cities most affected by this policing foster gang membership, violent crime and continued drug use amongst a cycle of despair. Furthermore, children with parents in jail are more likely to live in poverty, exhibit emotional or behavioral disorders, and often lack support needed for success.Cops disproportionately and discriminatorily police inner cities that are typically inhabited by minorities. White people do more drugs than black people, but blacks are arrested for drug possession more than 3x as often, and are more likely to go to jail for drug offenses. This is not justice. We have testimony and insurmountable evidence proving many efforts of the drug war look to specifically disrupt and punish particular populations of people [12]. This perpetuates the misguided, racist assumption that drug abuse is limited to particular demographics. Worse, it contributes to the increasingly hostile and violent relationship between police and people living in the inner cities, which has seen an uptick in brutality and contentious policing since the War on Drug's inception [13].Over the years, the drug war has led to the decimation of many civil liberties. The 4th Amendment is intended to limit the power of law enforcement to search and arrest without cause. Unlike real crimes, drug use does not have inherent victims, thus no parties are forthcoming to law enforcement requesting support. To catch people engaging in voluntary drug transactions, police often resort to wiretapping, surveillance, bribery and entrapment [14].Further, the drug war fosters the grotesque practice of civil asset forfeiture. Many innocent people lose their lives and property wrongly and without due process [15]. The drug war also inhibits the rights of felons; the U.S. is the only democracy in the world to deprive its citizens of the right to vote after they have completed their sentences. Moreover, the drug war inhibits free speech. For instance despite the plethora of research indicating its viable medicinal use, the White House threatened to arrest and revoke the license of any doctor who recommended marijuana to a patient (or even discussed its benefits) in 1996 [16]. Similar restrictions infringe on people's right to make informed medical choices. After a surge in drug abuse, addiction, overdoses and AIDS, Portugal experimented with the decriminalization of drugs. Fifteen years later, Portugal has the second lowest death rate from illegal drugs in all of Europe (after experiencing one of the worst rates under prohibition). There has been a decline in the percentage of people who have used a drug and then continued to do so. Drug related deaths have steeply declined; there are virtually no drug overdoses in Portugal. HIV rates among drug users have also declined [17]. The British Journal of Criminology found that upon decriminalization, Portugal saw a decrease in imprisonment and a surge in visits to health clinics that deal with addiction and disease [18]. Without the stigma and threat of penalties, people are more likely to seek treatment and recovery from drug abuse. The U.S. would similarly benefit from legalization. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...