It was not too long ago – in 1971 in fact – that American President Richard Nixon opened the “War on Drugs” against the backdrop of an emergent hippie counterculture, famously labelling the abuse of narcotic substances to be the country’s "public enemy No. 1." Since this declaration, subsequent American leaders have followed to the tune of Nixon’s bugle call, and little effort has been spared in terms of funding, bureaucratic formation, and combined state efforts in attempting to eradicate this vice from American society.
It therefore comes as no surprise that American society of today has grown accustomed to the drug-as-vice value judgement which has underpinned the drug prohibition policy of the country for the last 40 years. In spite of differences in federal and state law on the appropriate manner of punishment, it is nonetheless accepted that it is a crime to either possess or sell drugs. Yet, what is striking is that despite the government’s concerted attempts at drug prohibition, the trend of drug abuse has not shown signs of letting up. More crucially, excessive laws on prohibition have resulted in attendant social problems. Chief amongst these is the problem of over-crowding in American prisons, which are struggling for space to house offenders admitted for drug-related crimes.
Using the prison case as a microcosm of the shortcomings of America’s drug prohibition policy, would you – as a policymaker – take the controversial stand to legalise drug use given that the social benefits of doing so outweigh the costs?
I would, and I encourage you to support or challenge my position in this dialectical exercise of discovery.
What you are suggesting is, given that drug laws are ineffective in deterring drug abuse, the laws should be abolished. Is that essentially it? What about changing the law such that their effectiveness is raised? How will the costs of tightening enforcement and perhaps introducing harsher punishments compare with the costs of overhauling the entire system and legalising drugs (presumably this will include some sort of regulation which would incur costs). Moreover, what is the probability that the legalisation of drugs will effect a decrease in drug abuse?
ReplyDeleteAnd perhaps, you might also like to consider the role of the law in this. Heh. Remember, section 377A? hahaha. Does the law exist to represent the consensus and opinion of the people? If so, you point out that there exists a "drug-as-vice" value judgement. Is this judgement held by the majority?
Just some things you might want to explore further in the course of the project. But I'm sure you've already considered most of it. You're just waiting for the right moment to reveal your hand. Sneaky. heh.
Yes, I think you've raised a good point on costs - which will be needed for the establishment of bureaucratic organisations to regulate drug use even in the event of drug legalisation. But I think it would be reasonable to suggest that this would be less than proportionate to the current costs of border security and prison upkeep. In addition, the imposition of a tax on marijuana that would come with a system of regulation at least ensures some level of inflow into the government's coffers.
ReplyDeleteI liked what you said about the role of law and will be considering it further in my argument. In this case, I think it is fair to suggest that the "drug-as-vice" judgment has its roots from Nixon's era, who started the "War on Drugs" in response to the hippie counterculture movement. Subsequent administrations have since continued this approach, but the Obama adminstration has strikingly adopted a hands-off approach to this. I am tempted to read this as reflective of a shift in policy thinking that is resonant with the popular view held by the majority, but I guess that remains to be seen.