An interesting dichotomy exists with the issue of drug legalization. On the one hand, there are drugs that are legal and sold every day, albeit some under strict conditions. These drugs are available for just about any condition and produce an infinite array of effects. Yet, since they are sanctioned by the state, people show little hesitation in consumption. On the other hand, there are drugs that have been deemed illegal. In some cases, illegal drugs duplicate the effects of the legal counterpart. However, rather than being sanctioned, drugs of this type are under prohibition by the state. By having a situation where some drugs are legal while others are not, a contradiction is maintained. This contradiction is the source of much expense and trouble to the state. So why this duopoly is allowed to continue within society when it could be eliminated?
It is a safe guess that the majority of people are against the legalization of all drugs; moreover, the conviction they hold is quite firm because they believe their rationale to be solid. The main objections are that addiction would escalate, drug related crimes would rise, and that an overall decay of the state would occur. Along this same line of thinking, since society has deemed certain drugs to be harmful, it is government’s job to protect the state from its own citizens. Thus, a state of Federal prohibition is necessary.
In general, there are several reasons why prohibition doesn’t work. First, illegal drug use already exists, so prohibition obviously doesn’t completely stop illegal drug activity. At best, prohibition might only slow down drug use; some believe that having drugs as taboo only encourages its use. Next, the outlawing of certain drugs gives rise to an unregulated black market as opposed to a well-monitored system. Since black markets operate without oversight, these markets fluctuate unpredictably and can give rise to crime that wouldn’t exist otherwise. If prohibition is found to cause more harm to the state than that which it is meant to prevent, prohibition should end for this reason alone. Third, a Federal prohibition is redundant. All states already have their own individual drugs laws in place. These laws more accurately reflect the will of the people than a Federal mandate. The Federal government could save the expense of fighting a losing war and return the power of self-governance to the states.
Nevertheless, perhaps the best means of persuasion why Federal prohibition doesn’t work, and that power should be allocated to the states is by offering a current relevant example. Lately the focus on drug legalization is on the uses of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. Some states have approved its usage because the people of those states believed correctly that the community is harmed more by its prohibition than by marijuana becoming legal. The fact is in the states where marijuana has become regulated, the individual states are seeing a rise in revenue, more employment, and new markets. Also crime has not risen and society has not degraded, but rather improved. Unfortunately, the Federal prohibition still remains. In essence, as long as the Federal prohibition exists, the people of the states are having their Liberty compromised. Therefore, Federal prohibition should immediately cease, and allocating the power to the states should immediately take place, for it is a more effective way of governance concerning the issue of illegal drugs.
|