Decided to put some of my term papers here for people to read when they're bored, starting with this one for
GEK2506 Drugs and Society
The Singapore government has been relatively successful in breaking up drug rings, uncovering money laundering plots, arresting, jailing or even hanging dealers and users. For example, in a recent high profile drug bust by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), tons of marijuana, heroin and cocaine were confiscated. However, the problem of drugs remained uneradicated. Despite stiff sentences and even death penalties, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that the prevalence of drug abuse in Asia is still on the rise. This call for alternative solutions. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to control and regulate drug consumption instead.
Legalization does not necessarily mean a “free-for-all” drugs market. Similarly, the lifting of drugs prohibition does not amount to official endorsement of cocaine, heroin and amphetamines abuse. Instead, legalization is a form of regulation with a set of controls and limits. It also presents an opportunity to re-channel resources from raids that does not provide any long term solutions towards efforts in limiting drug use. There could be different ways in implementing this. For example, decriminalization of drug consumption could mean that the sale of previously prohibited drugs would still be against the law but the mere possession of a certain quantity for personal use would not be illegal for adults. Full legalization means that no drug possession would be against the law for adults. In some cases, drugs might even be legally sold to adults in much the same way that tobacco and alcohol are sold today. It is likely that drug use by minors would still be against the law.
“Legalization Will Cause Sudden Surge in Drug Use” is a Fallacy
Prohibitionists in the United States of America often argue that legalization of currently illegal drugs will immediately cause a rise in drug consumption. In support of their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin and cocaine addiction in various countries before international controls took effect. These would invariably translate to social cost which the country has to bear including higher public health spending as a result of drug overdoses, fetal deformation, road accidents and loss of productivity due to absenteeism. However, this is not entirely true. While it is true that the consumption rate would rise, it is “not axiomatic that the increase would be very large or last very long, especially if legalization is paired with appropriate public education programs.” (Stares, 2001). In fact, the consumption of opium, heroin and cocaine in the US had already began falling before prohibition took effect and that alcohol consumption did not rise suddenly after prohibition was lifted. From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use. (National Research Council, 2001)
Prohibition of Drug is Unconstitutional
It can be said that the prohibition of drugs is an infringement of personal liberty. In the United States, the prohibition of drugs is actually unconstitutional. The powers of the Congress regarding the kinds of laws it can pass or agencies it may create are listed in Article I, Section 8. The general welfare clause in Section 8 and the “necessary and proper” clause at the end give Congress broad powers to do anything it wants but it soon became clear of that this was dangerous. Therefore, in the 10th Amendment it was stated:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibition by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This amendment stated explicitly the powers exercised by the national government must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution with all other powers being retained by the states or the people. The administration of criminal justice is not addressed in the Constitution and is therefore a power of the state. The U.S. Congress had gotten the powers to set up national police force (F.B.I) and got involved in the arena of criminal justice though the misconstrued commerce clause and the taxing power. In 1919, the 18th amendment was used to pass a law to prohibit alcohol. “There had not been any similar amendment to prohibit other drugs. Instead, the taxing power was used to regulate – not prohibit – opiates and cocaine.” (Hager, 2001) Over the next 20 years, the Supreme Court, through a series of carefully targeted prosecution eventually ended with the “legitimacy” to prohibit drugs. This is however not constitutional.
The reason why the United States Constitution was examined here was because many countries have similar provisions for powers of the government and rights of individuals. The Singapore Constitution however, do not provide for such liberties. Under Article 9 “Liberty of the Person” Section 6(b) clearly states that:
“Nothing in this article shall invalidate any law relating to the misuse of drugs or intoxicating substances which authorizes the arrest and detention of any person for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation, by reason of such law being inconsistent with clauses (3) and (4), and, in particular, nothing in this article shall affect the validity or operation of any such law before 10 March 1978.”
In other words, the personal liberty described in Article 9 Section 1 does not apply to personal liberties when it comes to drug consumption. However, given the longstanding U.S. role as the principal sponsor of international drug control measures such decision will inevitably affect other countries, including Singapore.
Health Risks of Illegal Drugs Overstated
Besides, the health risks of some illegal drugs are much lower than that of tobacco and alcohol. The former causes about 30 percent of all cancer deaths. Annually more than 400,000 Americans die of cigarette smoking. Also, the Surgeon General also found that nicotine is more addictive than any drugs, legal and illegal. Most nicotine addicts are hooked before the age of 18. The reason why alcohol and tobacco are legal, despite the damage they do is that prohibition would be even worse.
Social Costs of Prohibition Too High and Ineffective
In fiscal 1996, Clinton requested $14.6 billion for drug control and US state and local governments spend about twice that each year. In the recently announced Budget 2005 of Singapore, it is estimated that about $2.31 billion will be spent on Home Security (Singapore Expenditure Estimates 2005), up 4.4% from last year. Of this amount, a portion will be directed into improving and developing jail facilities. This cost can be reduced if popular illegal drugs can be legalized. The current prohibitive laws results in prisons overloaded with non-violent drug users and dealers, who now often receive harsher penalties than murderers, rapists and serious white collar criminals. Michael Quinlan, director of the federal Bureau of Prisons under Reagan and Bush, once said, “that … brings serious consequences in terms of our ability to incarcerate truly violent criminals”. If putting one drug dealer into jail meant fewer dealers in the streets, perhaps this wave of incarceration would eventually do some good but unfortunately, the dynamics of drug trafficking is not so simple. One dealer gone in a drug ring meant someone else will take over that position. The position is just simply too lucrative for it to remain vacant for long. With legalization, the funds which had been poured into law enforcement will be better off channeled into education and treatment of drug users.
In America where shoot-outs are frequent, many children die in cross fires. Others are too scared to go to school or are threatened by gangs. In the U.S., “…illegal drug trade is the country’s leading cause of death by homicide – and the illegal drug trade wouldn’t have existed without prohibition.” (Shenk, 2001). During 1919 to 1933, the U.S. prohibited alcohols and the period is now synonymous with violence, organized crime and corruption. We are seeing the exact same thing happening right now due to misinformed drug prohibition.
Crushing Black Market Forces
Legalizing cocaine, heroin and amphetamines will also diminish the black market significantly. In the United States alone, the black market nets at around $50 to $60 billion in income annually. For a small country like Singapore, the amount would be lower than that but nonetheless, a significant sum. In a lawful society, such a large industry would be regulated by rules and enforcement mechanism but the intense competition of the black market is “regulated only by violence” (Shenk, 2001). This war on drugs has somehow created its own victims. Innocent children are killed in drug-related shootouts. The young and impressionable are coerced or lured away from school by the easy cash of drug trade. With legalization, the prices of the drugs will definitely fall but it must be stressed once again that there will be no explosion of drug use. Therefore, with the diminishing black market forces, these social problems will diminish too.
Prohibition also leads to non-standardization of drug found in the black market. Illegal drugs left unregulated, are more often than not more dangerous than they need to be. This can be likened to consuming alcohol without prior knowledge of its alcoholic content. It could be 30 proof or 190 proof or worst still, diluted with a dangerous, harmful chemical. Virtually all overdose deaths from the use of illegal drugs in the United States is due to contaminants or the user’s ignorance of the drug’s potency. According to online Ecstasy website DanceSafe.com, “One of the recent risks associated with Ecstasy is the possibility of obtaining adulterated drugs that may be more toxic than MDMA.” While so-called drug warriors continue to fight to stiff sentences and futile law enforcement programs, drug consumption rates continue to climb and people continue to die due to the lack of control and standardization. Drug treatment, certainly more effective in limiting drug use than law enforcement or interdiction is continually under-funded.
Conclusion
The debate of drug legalization requires more scrutiny than ever. Drug prohibition is very much of a crusade, discussed in moral terms, supported on faith, not evidence. Given the evidence and the current losing battle against drugs, it does seem more pragmatic to control and regulate it before it claims too many innocent lives. With legalization a set of controls can be put in place and provides for additional tax revenue which could be put into use to educate and rehabilitate drug abusers. A parallel can be drawn with gambling and casinos where in many of these places where gambling is legalized, many successful addiction cessation programmes funded by casino taxes have been put in place. More importantly, society need not always pay the costs of individual decisions. As Block argues, “If legalization makes drug-related problems no worse, and improves matters in other ways, there would be a prima facie case for ending prohibition.” (2001).Under such a system, the choice of drug (ab)use will invariably fall rightfully on the individual.
References:
• “Drug Use Should Be an Individual Choice” in Legalizing Drugs pp. 49-57. Szasz, Thomas (2001).
• “Legalization of Drugs is a Sound Economic Policy” in Legalizing Drugs pp. 53-55. Block, Walter (2001).
• “Prohibition of Drugs Has Serious Consequences” in Legalizing Drugs pp. 12-17. Shenk, Joshua Wolf (2001).
• “Prohibition of Drugs is Unconstitutional” in Legalizing Drugs pp. 38-41. Hager, Paul (2001).
• “The legalization of Drugs Requires Serious Scrutiny” in Legalizing Drugs pp. 7-11. Stares, Paul B. (2001).
• Drugs: Should They Be Legalized? Oliver, Marilyn Tower (1996).
• Informing America’s Policy On Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us pp. 192-193. National Research Council (2001).
