FREE ESSAY ON IS LEGALIZATION A REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE TO THE WAR ON DRUGS?

IS LEGALIZATION A REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE TO THE WAR ON DRUGS?

For years, the issue of legalization has been an increasingly controversial subject.
Millions of dollars are spent annually in the War on Drugs causing many to wonder if this
fight is cost-effective or if an alternative such as legalization would be more realistic
than current efforts in drug prevention. Opponents state that with legalization would
come an increase not only in availability, but also with everything associated with that
availability. This includes suffering of users and their loved ones, death of users and
innocent alike, increases in health-care costs, cost to employers, drug-related crimes,
and increases in various other social, economic, and emotional costs. On the other hand,
advocates argue it is pointless to continue to ignore the presence of drugs in society.
They feel society must acknowledge the now-illegal narcotics as it has with alcohol and
tobacco. Legalization would result in purity assurance, labeled concentration of the
product, obliteration of pushers, obliteration of drug crime, savings in expensive
enforcement, and significant tax revenues. Both sides of the controversy are confident
with the credibility and effectiveness of their respective arguments, making it necessary
for society to ask itself whether legalization of narcotics is a realistic alternative to
current prohibition and the war on drugs or if legalization would result in more negative
consequences than positive.
The United States government's current position on narcotics is prohibition. The
cornerstone of drug prohibition in America came with the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914.
The Harrison Act restricted the use of opiates, such as morphine, heroin, and cocaine, to
medicinal purposes. Strong evidence suggests that the law was instituted in order to
prevent casual or non-medical users, frequently called dope fiends from obtaining the
drugs outside of medical practice. The American experience with drugs at the end of the
19th century demonstrated the serious problems that can be caused by the general use of a
wide range of legally available drugs. These problems were judged unacceptable by
Americans of that day. Prohibition was the result of nonpartisan public outcry over the
negative effects of unrestricted drug use. (Trebach 41-44)
The most important question in regards to legalization is how it would affect use and
abuse in this country. Advocates of legalization such as Steven Duke and Albert Gross
argue that those who do not use under prohibition will not use under legalization. Duke
is a law professor at Yale University, and Gross is a lawyer from San Diego, California.
They are greatly respected advocates for legalization, their greatest fame stemming from
their co-authored book, America's Longest War. The key argument made by advocates Duke
and Gross is that the major reasons why people desist from smoking and drinking - health,
social stigma, morality, aesthetics - are also applicable to the drugs currently labeled
'illegal' (120). Whether Americans choose to avoid recreational drugs in the first place
or to quit using or abusing them is linked to the quality of their lives and their
perceived prospects for a rewarding life without drug use or abuse. As Duke states,
illegal-drug use has been reduced dramatically in the past few years among white middle
and upper classes-but hardly or not at all among ethnic minorities, who largely inhabit
out inner cities. Many of those users see nothing but a bleak future before them (121).
Having little to lose by drug abuse, they feel no regrets about summarily losing it. In
sum, the drug market is already saturated with a combination of legal and illegal drugs.
Proponents of legalization feel that virtually everyone who now wants to get high already
does so, and while legalization may significantly alter market shares among the now legal
and illegal drugs, it is unlikely to create a dramatic increase in demand for narcotics.
As Michael S. Gazzaniga, professor of neuroscience at Dartmouth Medical School, puts it,
There is a base rate of drug abuse, and it is [presently] achieved one way or another
(121). Gazzaniga and those who share his views place their argument heavily upon the
point that legalization would not cause current non-users to begin to use. (Duke
118-125)
A secondary point made by legalization proponents on this issue is that while the cheaper
prices of narcotics under legalization may cause an increase in consumption, these lower
prices would deter people from using alcohol. No longer deterred by high prices or
criminalization associated with narcotic use, users would use cocaine over alcohol
because while both produce similar psychological effects, alcohol is responsible for more
annual deaths than all narcotics combined making narcotic use or abuse the lesser of two
evils. The argument made by legalization advocates is that getting current alcohol
abusers to switch from abusing alcohol to abusing narcotics would be all-in-all
beneficial to society. (Duke 119-120)
Controversially, legalization adversaries such as Robert DuPont argue that the inevitable
result of legalization would be increased drug use, along with increased addiction and
death rate. DuPont, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University and
former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, provides evidence in
pre-prohibition experiences as well as more current experiments with legalization. DuPont
states that since the main goal of legalization would be elimination of the black market,
drug prices under the system of legalization must be kept much lower than they are now.
When most commodities become cheaper, more people use them and those who used them before
use more of them. This has been proven true with narcotics and other pleasure drugs. For
instance, when crack was introduced in the mid-1980s, the price of cocaine dropped
significantly, and the number of users nearly tripled as a result. New York authorities
supported DuPont's research, stating the reduced prices also accompanied increases in the
numbers of both new users and abusers of cocaine (DuPont 127). Several studies show that
the price of cigarettes-our most addictive drug-has a measurable impact upon consumption.
It is not a difficult concept to grasp: the higher the price, the less tobacco smoked.
(DuPont 126-132)
Since there has never been an experiment in the United States regarding the effects of
legalization of drug usage, no conclusions can be drawn without some uncertainty.
However, as William J. Olson has researched, it is possible to look to experiments
overseas or other pertinent events in American history. Olson, a senior fellow at the
National Strategy Information Center, uses the Platzspitz Park experiment as an example.
In 1987, in Zurich, Switzerland, the city government set aside Platzspitz Park as an
experimental laboratory, decriminalizing drugs within the park, making them available
without legal consequences. Health care and clean syringes were provided for addicts and
it was hypothesized that the experiment would lead to a reduction in crime, better health
care for addicts, and containment of the problem to a defined area. Instead, drug-related
crime increased, drug dealers from other nations brought their business to Zurich, and
the health care system was overwhelmed as drug users were in constant need of
resuscitation. Zurich is a perfect example of the failure of decriminalization and
legalization. The Netherlands provides another great example, as they have chosen not to
enforce their anti-drug laws, exhibiting tolerance in hopes that the people will learn
for themselves. As in Zurich, the Netherlands has become populated with drug lords and
addicts, making it the most crime-prone nation in Europe. Furthermore, Dutch efforts to
license legal heroin use quickly ran aground amid huge increases in crime and overdose
deaths, despite many efforts of treatment and information programs. The consensus
legalization opponents have come to is if legalization will not work overseas, there is
nothing to say it will work in the United States. While it is not completely comparable,
precedence can be found in the prohibition of alcohol. Alcohol usage and rates of liver
disease declined significantly during Prohibition. Following repeal of the 18th
Amendment, the number of drinkers in the United States increased by sixty percent. The
conclusion drawn by legalization adversaries is that if the prohibition on narcotics was
repealed, the use and abuse of now-illegal drugs would soar as well. Other evidence in
the United States can be found in the vast social experimentation during the 1960s and
1970s. This led to a great push for non-enforcement of existing anti-drug laws. The
cumulative message caused an explosion in use, followed by a crime wave, increased social
violence, and skyrocketing health care costs. (Olson 112-117)
Legalizing the use of a drug that was previously illegal is also likely to have an impact
on consumption besides the effects of increased availability. While legalizing drugs is
not a statement that drugs are good, it is no longer a statement that drugs are not bad.
Legalization can easily be interpreted as removal of condemnation and equating
once-illegal drugs with the harmless legal drugs: alcohol and tobacco. (Olson 113-114)
If drugs are legalized, consumption will naturally rise. An increase in availability will
undoubtedly result in an increase in use, and no longer saying narcotics are illegal
would be like saying narcotics are not harmful. The opponents of legalization adequately
defend their case on this issue with statistics and proven fact while advocates again try
to equate optimism with factual evidence. If trends of narcotic use after legalization
would resemble trends already proven in use of alcohol and tobacco, than use would
unquestionably rise with legalization. Too much evidence points towards a rise in use to
believe that just because people do not use now then they will not use in a
decriminalized and legalized society. Under legalization, prices will drop and
availability will increase leading to an unquestionable increase in use. 
Whenever a change in law in debated, the affect of that change on the crime rate is
almost always a key topic. Theodore Vallance, a professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State
University and the author of several books on what he considers the failures of
prohibition, is among the most respected proponents of legalization. His extensive
research in the crimes committed by drug users has revealed many intriguing statistics.
Explaining the affects of legalization on the criminal system, he has divided those
affects into three main categories. The first of these categories centers on the decrease
of predatory crime that would occur outside of prohibition. Secondly, territory wars
between rival drug dealers would become obsolete under legalization. Often viewed as the
most important, the third of these affects is since possession and use of narcotics would
no longer be a crime, corruption in the system on drug-related issues would be
nonexistent. Vallance states that of the millions of lawbreakings that occur each day,
most are committed by the estimated twenty million users of illegal drugs who are
responsible for well over one million annual arrests. For instance, the average heroin
addict requires $10,000 every year to sustain his habit, and more than three quarters of
these addicts reportedly obtain these funds by committing predatory crimes such as
muggings, burglaries, and occasional associated killings. In Miami, a survey of 356
heroin users showed that they admittedly committed nearly 120,000 crimes combined. That
averages out to about 337 crimes per person annually, making it more of a full-time job
than a way to make ends meet every now and then. Interviews of 500 cocaine hot-line
callers showed 45 percent of them reporting stealing, forgery, or fraud, in order to
support their habit. Vallance claims drug prohibition, like liquor prohibition, makes it
profitable for criminal organizations to supply them and leaves addicts with no source of
supply but criminals. As he puts it, It is the prohibition which generates the crime, not
only the crimes committed as rival gangs compete for market turf, but also the corruption
of law enforcement, prosecutors and judges (Vallance 136). It cannot be refuted that most
of the crime associated with drugs derives from the fact that they are illegal. The
proponents' argument is making all drugs legal would define most of these offenses out of
existence. More significant to is the fact that drug-related crime would lose its
motivational base: the violent crime associated with defending turf and getting money to
support habits, plus the corruption of police, courts, and other public officials.
Vallance and his fellow advocates of legalization are extremely confident that
legalization of narcotics would cause a great reduction in the crime rate. (Vallance
133-138) 
Gerald W. Lynch and Roberta Blotner are among the prime opponents of legalization.
Lynch is the president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a unit of the City
University of New York (CUNY). Blotner is director of CUNY's substance-abuse prevention
programs. Their biggest argument is in great opposition to Vallance's, as they argue
legalization would lead to an increase in violent crimes such as murder, child abuse, and
suicide. The most widely abused drugs in our society are tobacco, alcohol, and
prescription drugs, which combined account for about 85 million addictions nationwide. In
comparison, crack, heroin, and other hallucinogens each account for an average of one
million addictions. Furthermore, a total of 1 550 people in the United States die each
day as a result of alcohol or tobacco use, while only 20 die each day due to overdoses or
homicides related to illegal narcotics. As many as 80 percent of violent crimes involve
alcohol and drugs. This data clearly show that the drugs which are most available are the
most abused, the most dangerous, and the most costly. A number of studies have
demonstrated the undeniable relationship between drug use and homicides, automobile
deaths, child abuse and sexual abuse. According to recent pharmacological research,
certain drugs, especially cocaine, have the tendency to cause violent behavior. Many
experts, including Lynch and Blotner, think that unless there was free access to
unlimited quantities of drugs, there would still be a black market even after
legalization. Drugs, regardless of whether they are legal, would still cost money. Since
many addicts cannot maintain jobs because of the effects of their use, they would
continue to engage in stealing and prostitution to pay for drugs and would continue to
subject their families and friends to abuse. (Lynch and Blotner 139-144)
While there have not been any narcotic legalization experiments in the United States,
international experiments support Lynch and Blotner in their claim that legalization
would not lead to a reduction in crime. The aforementioned failed experiments in
Switzerland and the Netherlands are evidence of the effects legalization would have on
crime. The Netherlands became the most crime-prone country in Europe as a result of their
experiment, and the Zurich crime rate soared to an all time high. While there is
impossible to be positive whether results would be the same in America as in these
European countries, there is absolutely no indication that it would be any better. (Olson
112-117)
Drug legalization would not eliminate crime. Proponents of legalization state their case
strongly, but optimism never equals factual evidence. While the increased availability
and lower prices would probably make predatory crimes less necessary at first, increased
availability would indubitably result in an increase in use. An increase in use would
mean users would be going through what little income they already had at an increasingly
rapid rate meaning predatory crimes would eventually become a quick and logical
alternative to addicts. The effects of narcotics such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana
are proven to make addicts more violent and, in some cases, suicidal. Increase in use
would mean an increase in violent, homicidal or suicidal addicts. Just because
legalization would redefine some crimes, those crimes would still be committed.
Legalization would undoubtedly lead to an increase in crime.
Proponents of legalization do not understand why narcotics are labeled as illegal when,
as they claim, narcotics are no more harmful than legalized drugs. Benson B. Roe,
professor emeritus and former chair of cardiothoracic surgery at the University of
California at San Francisco, states that, since drugs cannot be eradicated from society,
and since drugs are no more harmful than many legal substances such as alcohol or
tobacco, most illegal drugs should be legalized (107). In Roe's line of work, he came
across many destroyed heart valves in infected intravenous drug users. Deciding to
ascertain what proportion of serious fatal drug-related disease this group represented,
he spoke to the San Francisco Coroner. The coroner reported that infections from
contaminated intravenous injections were the only cause of drug-related deaths [he] had
seen except for occasional deaths from overdoses (108). He confirmed the inference that
clean, reasonable dosages of heroin, cocaine and marijuana are pathologically harmless.
As Roe reports, it is frequently stated that illicit drugs are bad, dangerous,
destructive, or addictive, and that society has an obligation to keep them from the
public. But nowhere can be found reliable, objective scientific evidence that they are
any more harmful than other substances and activities that are legal. The prevailing
complaint put forth by legalization advocates is that why certain (illegal) substances
are singularly more evil than legal substances like alcohol has not been explained (108).
In the eyes of these advocates, legislation has never successfully addressed the complex
question of right and wrong outside of making some drugs legal while leaving others
illegal. Although it is widely known that the nicotine found in most tobacco products is
probably the most addictive harmful substance in our society, no one has suggested making
it illegal even though tobacco kills more people every year than any illicit drug. Roe's
last point is that illegal drugs have gotten a bad wrap as poisonous when in actuality,
there is little medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate
consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine, or heroin (109). As legalization
proponents state, narcotics do not cause the adverse long-term effects of diseases or
disturbances like alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine do. (Roe 107-111)
Those who strive against legalization such as Doctor James A. Inciardi refute proponents
claims that narcotics are relatively harmless by citing factual scientific evidence.
Professor Inciardi is director of the Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies at the
University of Delaware. He has performed extensive clinical and scientific research to
discover the truth about narcotics such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. (Inciardi
165)
While many marijuana addicts claim that smoking just a few joints daily is less harmful
than regularly smoking as many cigarettes, Inciardi has found that the respiratory burden
in smoke particles and absorption of carbon monoxide from smoking just one marijuana
'joint' is some four times greater than from smoking a single tobacco cigarette (Inciardi
166). Additionally, it was found that one toke of marijuana delivers three times more tar
to the mouth in lungs than one puff of a filter-tipped cigarette. Marijuana deposits four
times more tar in the throat and lungs and increases carbon monoxide levels in the blood
fourfold to fivefold. With these statistics, marijuana is unquestionably more detrimental
than tobacco (Inciardi 166-168). 
Cocaine, commonly referred to as an all-American drug has few of the life-threatening
side effects associated with other pleasure drugs. Snorting cocaine gives the user a
twenty minute high which is immediate, intensively vivid, and sensation enhancing. The
user has no hangover, no lung cancer, and no holes in the arms or burned-out cells in the
brain. With all these positives to cocaine use, it is easy to wonder why it is looked
down upon. As Inciardi describes cocaine highs, the euphoric lift that comes from but a
few brief snorts is short-lived and invariably followed by a letdown. More specifically,
when the grandiose feelings begin to wane, a corresponding deep depression is often felt,
which is in such marked contrast to users' previous states that they are strongly
motivated to repeat the dose and restore the euphoria (168). This leads to chronic,
compulsive use. When chronic users try to stop using cocaine, they typically fall into a
severe depression, which only another dose of cocaine can bring them out of. This becomes
a constant chronic cycle. The physiological consequences of cocaine use include increased
temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure. In terms of numbers of overdose deaths,
cocaine ranks higher than any other drug-legal or illegal. (Inciardi 168-169)
Heroin is a highly addictive drug. As Inciardi states, for the addict, it becomes life
consuming: it becomes mother, father, spouse, lover, counselor, and confessor (171).
Because heroin has depressant effects, a portion of the user's day is spent in a
semi-stupefied state. Collectively, these attributes result in a user more concerned with
drug-taking and drug-seeking than health, family, work, relationships, responsibility, or
anything else. Heroin slowly dominates the user's life and then eventually takes it.
(Inciardi 171-172) 
Regardless of what legalization advocates argue about how narcotics are no worse than
legal drugs, one cannot turn their back on the fact that now-illegal drugs are harmful to
the user and the user's loved ones. Although more people die each year of complications
pertaining to alcohol or tobacco, one must take into account the varying degree in use
between legal drugs and narcotics. What legalization advocates fail to acknowledge is
that the only reason statistics about alcohol and tobacco users are greater than
statistics on narcotics user is because there are more legalized drug users than illegal
drug users. The data supplied by legalization proponents is not objective and is
therefore preventative for one to draw a concrete conclusion.
With many people criticizing the cost-effectiveness of the war on drugs, a question
arises as to how legalization would affect funds used for programs involving drugs. As
Dr. Jefferson Fish reports, billions of dollars are spent annually in the war on drugs.
Government organizations ranging from Washington to local police forces are funded with
millions upon millions of dollars to work towards drug prevention. Prisons are
overcrowded with criminals convicted of drug use and possession. Fish states that under
legalization the funds put towards to war on drugs would be freed-up to be put towards
more deserving causes such as rehabilitation programs for addicts or those with drug
abuse problems. The annual costs of healthcare and loss of productivity to employers are
estimated at $600 billion for alcoholism, $60 billion for tobacco-related ailments, and
only $40 billion for users of illegal drugs. Advocates for legalization such as Dr. Fish
argue that because narcotics do not produce healthcare and productivity costs on the
scale of those produced by alcohol and tobacco, the funds moved from drug-prevention
would be better spent deterring the use of alcohol and tobacco. (Fish 539-541)
Opponents of legalization argue from the other side of the spectrum, stating that
legalization would cost the government and the American taxpayers more than prohibition.
Doctor Ethan Nadelmann, a professor at Princeton University, has done extensive research
on this particular issue. His argument is that alcohol and tobacco, the drugs that are
legal for adults, cause more harm than do all currently illegal drugs combined,
indicating legalization of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana would only cause an increase in
those costs. As Nadelmann puts it, The net costs to society would rise substantially
under legalization. The human costs of legalization would be paid be those most
vulnerable to addiction: the young and the disadvantaged (303). Also, while legalization
advocates claim narcotics do not produce health and productivity costs on the scale of
those produced by alcohol and tobacco users, they fail to acknowledge the higher level of
health and productivity costs per user by narcotic users compared to alcohol and tobacco
users. (Nadelmann 299-310)
As discussed previously, the increase in availability under legalization would lead to an
increase in use. More users means more abusers, and more abusers means more money is
going to be needed for costs stemming from healthcare and loss of productivity. The drug
problem in the United States in costly to the American taxpayer, and while legalization
may allow cost cuts in policing against narcotic use, money is still going to be needed
for drug prevention for the youth of this country and for the healthcare of drug users.
Legalization is not the cost-effective answer to the war on drugs. 
In addition to all aspects of legalization previously discussed, each side of the
legalization argument has further statements as to how legalization would affect society
as a whole. Advocates of legalization have three main points on benefits for society. The
first is that legalization would bring about drug purity assurance. The vast majority of
drug-related deaths come as a result of contaminated needles or overdoses: two things
legalization would take measures to prevent. In addition, marijuana is, strictly
medically speaking, actually safer than most processed foods. In its untampered form,
marijuana is one of the safest therapeutic substances. Under legalization, marijuana
would remain untampered and would not pose the negative side effects it does today. The
second point made by legalization proponents is that Legalization would lead to a
decrease in alcohol abuse. Substance abusers would turn to the less-harmful narcotics
over the more-harmful alcohol. Death rates would drop, as people are less likely to kill
themselves on narcotics than alcohol. Probably the most important of these three points
is the third one where legalization advocates state that drug users would be more willing
to seek help in a system of legalization. People would be more willing to get drug
intervention if it didn't mean they would have to admit to committing a felony in order
to do so. Also, pre-natal babies would receive proper care, as mothers would not fear
becoming criminals by seeking proper pre-natal medical care. These three points, if met
under legalization, would serve to benefit society. (Roe 107-110)
The opponents of legalization also present three points as to how legalization would
affect society. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime, and herein lies the first of their
three points. Job productivity and effectiveness is greatly decreased when the worker is
under the influence of narcotics or other drugs. An increase in use under legalization
would mean a decrease in productivity and effectiveness. The second of these points is
that families are destroyed by drug use, and the increase in use would inevitably mean an
increase in destroyed families. Thirdly, while prenatal medical care to babies of
drug-using mothers can benefit them and make their lives slightly better, no amount of
prenatal medical care can make up for having a baby affected by drug use. Unquestionably,
these three results of legalization would be utterly detrimental to society. (Olson
112-117)
It is common belief that the war on drugs has been a failure, but legalization is not the
answer to this problem. There is no catchall positive that could possibly arise from
legalization. Use will undoubtedly rise as prices drop and availability increases. Crime
will eventually increase, as narcotics users will need means of supporting their habit.
The American people will have to pay more as a result of losses sustained by
legalization. It is absolutely risible for advocates of legalization to defend their
argument stating that since alcohol and tobacco are already such a problem, then adding
narcotics to the list of legal drugs would not complicate matters. The fact of the matter
is that legalization would be making a bad problem worse. There is no reason for heroin,
cocaine, and marijuana to add to the problems already caused by alcohol and tobacco.
Legalization is not a step towards prevention because it lacks the elements of education,
intervention, and provisions of positive alternatives and training. The laws we have in
place today were put there for a reason. Prohibition is not the problem. Prohibition did
not cause widespread drug use; widespread drug use caused prohibition. Laws are made for
the purpose of restricting behavior that is not good for mankind. Prohibition was put
into effect for the good of society. Legalization would prove utterly detrimental to
society and drug prevention.
Bibliography
Duke, Steven B., and Albert C. Gross. Legalizing Drugs Would Not Increase Drug Abuse. The

War on Drugs. Ed. Stephen P. Thompson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. 118-125.
DuPont, Robert L. Legalizing Drugs Would Increase Drug Abuse. The War on Drugs. Ed. 
Stephen P. Thompson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. 126-132.
Fish, Jefferson M. How to Legalize Drugs. New York: Jason Aronson Incorporated, 1998.
Inciardi, James A. The Drug Legalization Debate. New York: Corwin Press, 1999.
Lynch, Gerald W., and Roberta Blotner. Legalizing Drugs Would Not Lead to a Reduction in
Crime. The War on Drugs. Ed. Stephen P. Thompson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 
1998. 139-144.
Nadelmann, Ethan A. Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and 
Alternatives. Drugs, Crime, and Social Policy. Ed. Thomas Mieczkowski. Boston: Allyn 
and Bacon, 1992. 299-319.
Olson, William J. The Legalization of Drugs Would be Harmful to Society. The War on 
Drugs. Ed. Stephen P. Thompson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. 112-117.
Roe, Benson B. The Legalization of Drugs Would Benefit Society. The War on Drugs. Ed. 
Stephen P. Thompson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. 107-111.
Trebach, Arnold S. Legalize It? Debating American Drug Policy. Washington, D.C.: American

University Press, 1993.
Vallance, Theodore. Legalizing Drugs Would Lead to a Reduction in Crime. The War on 
Drugs. Ed. Stephen P. Thompson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. 133-138.