Decriminalization of Drugs

Decriminalization of Drugs

The current approach to the “war on drugs” in Canada is flawed. Instead of adding more enforcement efforts to the drug problem, less enforcement might be a better solution. The following essay will give evidence that decriminalization of all drugs can improve the lives of drug abusers, put the country’s resources to a better use than incarcerating people with minor offenses, and make a mark on the war on drugs. Decriminalizing drugs comes with a lot of questions and concerns. Many people believe that decriminalization is not far off from legalization. Without knowing the difference, it can spark a lot of controversy. Amongst other concerns, both politicians and citizens fear that it might increase use and promote drug tourism. First of all, decriminalization is by no means the same as legalization. Legalization involves total freedom of the drug; use, possession, sale, and manufacturing (Greenwald 2). It will not be a free market of drugs available to everybody and anybody who wants them. Decriminalization involves replacing the criminal charge and jail time for using or possessing a drug, with a fine and mandated treatment. Although use would no longer be a criminal offense; trafficking, selling and producing drugs would remain to be a criminal activity. This means that people who do choose to use drugs will still have to encounter shady back door deals and those involved in the drug industry still have the fear of criminal charges and possible incarceration. However, users, rather than facing criminal charges for using or possessing small amounts of a drug, will only be faced with a civil fine or may be mandated to get treatment (Kleiman 27). Since Portugal decriminalized drugs in 2001, they have found that dependence rates, death by drugrelated causes and the use of most drugs have all decreased, while disease avoidance and awareness increase (Greenwald 19-27). Considering that current deterrent efforts of our current drug policy hardly seem to have any effect on lowering these issues; as millions of people around the globe use drugs at least once in their lifetime (Wolff 69), decriminalizing appears to have a better effect on the well being of those who do choose to use drugs. When it comes to drug tourism, there is no reason to believe that people would flock to any country based on available decriminalized drugs lack of criminal repercussions (Greenwald 6). This did not happen when Portugal decriminalized all drugs, or when Holland decriminalized marijuana. There may be a few instances where this will happen, but the government cannot stop everybody. One of the main reasons why I will argue decriminalization will be more effective than the current policy in Canada because it reduces the drug stigma currently in place in many aspects of society. By removing the criminal charge, the government opens up a lot of opportunities for people with a drug abuse problems. A good reason to decriminalize the use of drugs is the fact that it removes the current taboo that our society has placed on drug use. Sher’s perfectionist argument suggests that all users of drugs live in a distorted reality, can’t perform mental functions properly, have no priorities, etc, basically everything we characterize to addicts (Sher 30). If we remove the idea that individuals who use drugs are not good people, or can never get past their addiction, it will encourage them to do better for themselves while providing them with the opportunity to do so. People with a problem will be more encouraged to seek treatment, because they don’t have to be afraid of punishment (Greenwald 9).

Removing the problem-user’s fear of punishment also encourages them to participate in studies. Currently, our laws on drugs, and the societal taboo, discourage addicted users to come forward with their problem. Consequentially, these people remain at the mercy of their addictions, and insufficient studies have been conducted on the effects of drugs. We don’t have enough data to provide legitimate information about the effects of drugs, short-term or long-term. Therefore, we cannot properly educate citizens about drug use. Studies conducted without a taboo, and freedom of the user, may help determine effects of certain drugs, or the use of multiple drugs. The results of these studies can lead to better information, and ultimately, better education on drugs and their effects. In order to enforce any rules on drugs and their use, we would first have to develop a policy. I believe an effective policy would be one similar to Portugal’s. Use of drugs, would not be a criminal charge, nor would possession of an amount fit for personal use, which would vary by drug. An ideal drug policy would enforce treatment over jail time. Why make criminals out of people that need to be helped? (Greenwald 5). Criminal charges can seriously impact someone’s future for a minor charge such as possession. Our society is unfairly cruel to people convicted of a charge; many people who have drug-related charges have less of a job prospect, and may be rejected by their community, friends, or families (Kleiman 124). However, I also believe that repeat offenders should face more strict consequences with each violation. Perhaps, for the first time they are in offense of the policy, for example, possessing more than the allowed quantity, the offender would receive a fine. With their second offense, the offender would be mandated to go to a state-designated treatment program. On the user’s third offense, they might be sentenced to a small amount of jail time, and so on, getting more severe with each offense. This would be a deterrent to repeating violation of policy, and would make offenders responsible for their actions. A policy like this would suggest that the government is very serious about drug abuse and keeping drug problems under control. Many people, mostly citizens who pay taxes, won’t understand or accept this view right away. Many will say, “why should I have to pay for drug addicts to go to treatment?” or, “they deserve jail time”. Their fears and objections seem to be founded on valid reason. Yes, it seems more preferable to “clean the streets” of users, and send them to jail. Yes, at first it seems unnecessary to make citizens pay for treatment for those addicted to drugs. However, sending somebody to jail, and keeping them incarcerated, is paid for by tax-dollars. This money could be put to better use by helping addicts get clean. By helping problem users the government is still cleaning up the streets. People in treatment are watched with high intensity, restricting their freedom. Once these individuals are clean, social services would help them assimilate back into society, get a job, connect with others. When people are released from prison, they often don’t get this help assimilating back into society. They are almost always thrust back into their old life, falling right back into old habits, often finding themselves back in jail. Whether these people are in jail or in treatment, tax-payers are still paying for it. Not only is incarcerating people for minor drug charges, we are also wasting police resources and prison space that could be better spent catching offenders of worse crimes and keeping those dangerous people incarcerated. By getting people proper help, you are cleaning up the streets, and at the same time, improving the lives of people who may not have been able to get clean without the help received by mandated treatment.

Drug abuse is a prominent problem in every nation, as is the drug market that goes along with the user problem. However, to have an effect on the drug market, which ultimately is the bigger threat, you have to eliminate the demand for drugs by the heavy users. Many people have admitted to “trying” a drug at least once, billions of people have done this. Many of those billions who’ve tried a drug are otherwise law-abiding citizens. The media tells us that if you try one drug, it will lead to other drugs. Or that if an individual tries certain drugs, they will fall into addiction the very first time. For the most part, this is not true. In fact, most people who use drugs irregularly, don’t ever develop a drug problem (Barbor 1138). It is a small number of people who account for the unfortunate ones who fall into addiction. It is this same small number of addicts who account for most drug purchases and crimes. These dependent buyers keep the drug industry in such high demand. People who use drugs infrequently or only once in a while aren’t the targets of the drug industry, hard users are because they require the drugs almost daily, spending most of their income on their habit. Providing help to these users would be the most efficient tactic in lowering the demand for drugs. If you can get frequent users to use less or not at all, there would be a significant decrease demand. People who use drugs occasionally do not create enough demand for a steady market. Once you lessen the demand, the market will begin to become less prominent. The final reason, and perhaps the most important, is that decriminalizing drugs promotes liberalism and free choice. We aim to live in a world where all people are equal and can make their own decisions. Who says that society gets to judge people based on the decisions that we claim to be free to make? If people choose to use drugs, inflict self harm, or take part in crime, is their own choice. Participating in the drug world has consequences, and part of the choice is accepting the consequences that come with it. According to Mill’s harm principle, people should be free to whatever they please so long as it doesn’t harm anybody. Husak’s protective argument suggests that drugs harm both users and others, and in turn, is in violation of the harm principle. He suggests that families are torn apart, children are neglected and strangers get killed by people under the influence(Sher 31). However, besides the few percent of dependent drug users who do get involved with crimes due to drugs, whether it be theft to obtain drugs, or , most drug users don’t cause any harm to others (Husak 25). So, most people who use drugs cause no harm to others by doing a drug or by being under its influence. The people who do commit crimes due to drugs will still be charged according to their crime, which would be fair in any nation. As a society who promotes individual freedom, we should hold the right to put whatever we want into our bodies (Wolff 69). When it comes to drug policy, there are many reasons to change the status quo. The current policy violates our right to free choice, instills fear into those who need help the most, and prevents studies that could be very useful in the future. Changing our policies however, can open up a wide range of opportunities that could help a lot of people both now and in the future. Through decriminalization we can encourage people to get help, provide better treatment programs, and study drugs and their effects. Also, we will be able to make an impact on the demand for drugs in our country, and in turn reduce the need for a large illicit drug market. One of the biggest factors stopping us from achieving such change, is fear of the citizens of what might happen due to decriminalization. Similar policies have been established in Portugal and Holland, both of which had a lot of fears about the policy. However, these fears were unfounded, and the benefits of such policies have been realized (Greenwald 27-28). People are more inclined to get help, the amount of drug related deaths has gone down significantly, and their streets are cleaner because less people are addicted. Decriminalization could be a big step in the right direction for any nation that adopts it.

Works Cited

Babor, Thomas , et al., "Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book." Ad! ! diction 105.7 (2010): 1137-45. Web. 20 September 2012.

Greenwald, Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and ! ! Successful Drug Policies. Cato Institute (2009). Web. 20 September 2012. ! (URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf) Husak, Douglas. "Four Points about Drug Decriminalization." Criminal Justice Ethics ! ! 22.1 (2003): 21-9. Web. 20 September 2012.

Kleiman, Mark, Jonathan Caulkins, and Angela Hawken. Drugs and Drug Policy: What ! ! Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

Sher, George. "On the Decriminalization of Drugs." Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1 (2003): ! ! 30-3. Web. 20 September 2012.

Wolff, Jonathan, Ethics and Public Policy, London: Routledge, 2011. Print

Cited: Babor, Thomas , et al., "Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book." Ad! ! diction 105.7 (2010): 1137-45. Web. 20 September 2012. Greenwald, Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and ! ! Successful Drug Policies. Cato Institute (2009). Web. 20 September 2012. ! (URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf) Husak, Douglas. "Four Points about Drug Decriminalization." Criminal Justice Ethics ! ! 22.1 (2003): 21-9. Web. 20 September 2012. Kleiman, Mark, Jonathan Caulkins, and Angela Hawken. Drugs and Drug Policy: What ! ! Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Sher, George. "On the Decriminalization of Drugs." Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1 (2003): ! ! 30-3. Web. 20 September 2012. Wolff, Jonathan, Ethics and Public Policy, London: Routledge, 2011. Print