\documentstyle[doublespace,fullpage,ncs,11pt]{article}
\title{On the Legalization of Drugs}
\author{Greg Hudson}
\begin{document}
\maketitle

Because of rising violent crime rates in the last couple of decades,
people in this country have grown more and more concerned about the
government's efforts to prevent crime.  Some want to see more gun
regulation, some want to see harsher penalties for crimes, some want
to see more police on the streets.  In response to these legitimate
concerns, politicians have been trying to distinguish themselves as
being ``tough on crime,'' and government officials have tried to
develop programs to reduce crime rates in one way or another.  Part of
this effort has been against the use and trafficking of illegal
narcotics, both factors increasingly linked to violent crime.  In this
essay, I intend to argue that this particularly harsh crackdown on
drug use and drug trafficking is not a good solution to the problem of
violent crime, and that it has led to severe abuses of the civil
rights of innocent people.  I also intend to argue that legalization
of drug use, while it carries certain risks, is a much better strategy
for reducing drug-related violent crime than our current
confrontational approach.

First, I'd like to discuss the political atmosphere that has led to
the so-called War on Drugs as a de facto response to the problem of
drug-related violent crime.  Although lowering crime rates is a very
difficult problem, today's politicians prefer to discuss issues in
terms as simple as possible, and the simplest possible explanation for
rising crime rates is that other politicians are ``soft on crime.''
Thus, a major focal point of George Bush's successful presidential
campaign against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was that Willie Horton had
committed a homicide while on furlough from a Massachusetts prison
during Dukakis's term as governor.  It seemed quite irrelevant whether
crime rates went up or down during Dukakis's term; the simple stigma
of being ``soft on crime'' was enough to damage Dukakis's popularity.

Because of this political climate, most elected politicians do not
even begin to discuss non-confrontational strategies for reducing
crime, for fear of being labeled ``a soft-hearted liberal.''
Certainly, discussing drug legalization is out of the question for
politicians; as Mike Royko said in a May 6, 1994 newspaper editorial,
``Anyone who talks about putting drugs on the same plane as booze...
is considered a nut out to destroy our society.''  Thus, there has
been little controversy in the realm of politics over whether the War
on Drugs is an appropriate strategy for reducing crime rates, and,
more ominously, there has been very little objection to the
limitations on civil liberties which have resulted from the War on
Drugs, which we shall see later.  Although certain activist groups
such as the American Civil Liberties Union have condemned the effects
of the War on Drugs on civil liberties (without much success), there
has been a disturbing lack of public debate on whether confrontation
is the best strategy for reducing violent crime.

The War on Drugs consists primarily of increased attention to border
security in an effort to block smuggling, increased penalties and
mandatory minimum sentences for the possession and sale of illegal
drugs, and a relaxation of search and seizure rules to allagedly make
it easier for police to enforce drug regulations.  Although border
patrols periodically make captures of huge shipments of illegal
narcotics, they intercept only a tiny fraction of the actual drug
traffic into the country.  Increased penalties may have had some
deterrent effect on drug-related crimes, but crime rates in urban
areas continue to increase (a May 2, 1994 USA Today article noted that
homicides rose three percent last year), and mandatory minimum
sentences for drug-related crimes can send nonviolent criminals to
jail for much longer than is necessory or than is proportional to the
severity of their crimes.

The last main component of the War on Drugs, the relaxation of search
and seizure rules, bears special attention.  Beginning with the
Omnibus Crime Act of 1984, it has become permissible for federal and
state governments to confiscate the assets of alleged drug criminals
without convicting or even charging the owner of the property with a
crime.  The aim here is to make drug trafficking less profitable---but
the effect has been to deprive many innocent people of their property.
As the Pittsburgh Press reported in a 1991 series of articles entitled
``Presumed Guilty,'' the government can now confiscate property by
going through civil court, ``where the government accuses the
item---not the owner---of being tainted by crime.''  This legal
mechanism, called ``civil forfeiture,'' is not simply prone to abuse
in theory; it has been and is being widely abused in practice.  Again
according to the Pittsburgh Press, ``80 percent of the people who lost
property to the federal government were never charged,'' and most of
the property confiscated through civil forfeiture consists of modest
homes owned by ordinary people.

Bearing in mind the above causes and effects of the War on Drugs, I'd
now like to compare the alternative strategy of drug legalization to
our current confrontational strategy.  My primary focus here is on
reducing drug-related violent crime, although I will also address the
possiblility of drug legalization having negative effects on society.
I claim that the crackdwn on drug trafficking is very much like the
prohibition on alcohol during the 1920s, in that it has led to gang
warfare and tremendous profits for smugglers, and an overall increase
in violent crime.

The vast majority of drug-related violent crime is not a direct result
of people consuming drugs and being unable to control their actions;
rather, most violent crime related to drugs springs from the
territorial conflicts of street gangs engaging in drug trafficking.
The members of these gangs are usually hardened criminals, undeterred
by the promise of harsh sentences for their crimes.  It is often very
difficult to catch these criminals; a drive-by shooting does not leave
behind much helpful evidence.  Putting more police on the streets may
help somewhat, but there isn't enough money to hire enough police to
solve the problem entirely.

The repeal of the Prohibition dramatically decreased urban violence
due to alcohol gangs; likewise, legalizing drugs would severely reduce
the profitability of drug trafficking, and would virtually eliminate
the violent crime associated with maintaining territories for selling
drugs.  Although there are other sources of income for gangs, drug
sales are very lucrative by comparison.  Moreover, it would no longer
be necessary to overcrowd prisons by incarcerating nonviolent
criminals for possesion and use of drugs, making our justice system
a more effective tool for dealing with violent crime.

One may argue that that legalizing drugs would have costs high enough
to make it a bad idea even if it would reduce some kinds of violent
crime.  Without trying to address every possible cost of drug
legalization, I will divide these counterarguments into three
categories: first, that legalizing drugs would lead to more drug use,
and therefore damage the public health; second, that legalizing drugs
would lead to more drug use, and therefore more irresponsible and
criminal behavior due to people not being able to control their
actions; third, that legalizing drugs would send people the message
that it's okay for people to break the law if enough of them do it.

The first two of these counterarguments rely on the claim that
legalizing drugs would lead to more drug use.  Certainly, it's
reasonable to expect that drug use would become more popular if it
were legal, and it almost certainly would in the short run.  There are
other effective ways, however, for the government to decrease drug
use.  Once an activity is legal, it becomes possible to regulate it
effectively.  For instance, a national advertising campaign against
smoking tobacco, in combination with constraints on where people can
smoke, has led to fewer and fewer people smoking, without an outright
ban.

Even accepting for the sake of argument that legalization would
increase the use of previously illegal drugs, there are reasons why
legalization might not adversely affect the public health.  Because it
is much easier to effectively regulate the sale of drugs if it is
legal, the government could require warning labels, standards of
production, and other controls which would reduce (although not
eliminate) the health hazards associated with drugs.  Moreover, the
government could tax drug sales and income from drug sales, and use
the revenue to fund health education and drug rehabilitation programs,
mitigating health problems.

As for the objection that increased drug use would lead to criminal
behavior on the part of the users, I would argue that very little of
this behavior is a direct result of altered states of consciousness
due to drug use.  Most crime associated with drugs is due to
territorial conflicts of drug-trafficking street gangs; some is due to
drug-addicted people trying to steal money to pay artifically high
prices for drugs.  Legalizing drugs would largely eliminate both of
these motivations for commiting violent crimes.  Certainly, people in
altered states of consciousness can be dangerous, but only a small
fraction of the time.

Finally, there is the objection that legalizing drugs would be a
surrender to crime, that it would make people more likely to break the
law when they see other people doing it.  Here, I can only say that
justifying a legal practice because it ``sends the right message'' is
a constitutionally dangerous practice.  The government's role is to
respond to its people, not to command them; if enough people feel that
a law is not worth following, then perhaps it {\em should} be
repealed.

Although legalizing drugs has its risks, I believe that its material
benefits greatly outweigh these risks: it would eliminate the profit
motive for drug-related violent crime; it would allow the government
to effectively regulate the sale of drugs and make their use less
harmful; it would hopefully reverse the erosion of civil liberties
brought upon us by the War on Drugs; it would alleviate prison
crowding.  The ability to effectively regulate drug use could help
mitigate some of the risks associated with legalization.  Although
there may be arguments against drug legalization which I have not
considered here, I believe that the idea deserves much more
consideration in the political realm than it has been getting.

\end{document}

