Drug prohibition in the United States: costs, consequences, and alternatives

Article Abstract:

A radical approach to the drug problem in the US is the legalization of drugs. Legalization of drugs would mean the increased availability of drugs, decreased prices and the removal of the power of legal deterrent. There are many reasons why current methods of controlling drug abuse are not working; among them the fact that the law enforcement system is limited in its ability to control drug abuse, and that policies that have tried to limit the import of drugs into this country have not been successful. Law enforcement efforts have been increasingly successful in apprehending drug traffickers within this country, but this has had little effect on the price, availability or consumption of drugs. These law enforcement efforts are costly and counterproductive. In 1987, the government spent 10 billion dollars in the enforcement of drug laws. More than ten percent of prison inmates today were involved in a drug-related crimes. The cost of imprisoning these criminals is very high. Due to limited space, criminals who committed other crimes may not be imprisoned. The urban criminal justice courts are filled with drug-related crimes, again leaving little time to deal with other offenses. Since the legalization of drugs would reduce the cost of drugs, many of the crimes committed to get money for buying drugs, such as robbery, burglary, drug dealing, prostitution and numbers running, would decrease. The violence connected with drug traffickers would be reduced. Corruption in federal, state and local government due to the influence of drug dollars would be minimized. Drug production could be regulated, which would control dangerous substances that are sometimes mixed with the drugs. One of the major reasons for the rampant spread of AIDS, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, is the reuse of needles by intravenous drug users that are infected with AIDS. The spread of AIDS would decrease if the sale of syringes was not restricted. In addition, the government can gain as much as 10 billion dollars a year by reducing spending on drug enforcement and by taxing revenues from the production and sale of drugs. This money can be used for drug rehabilitation programs and educational programs to warn of drug abuse. It is impossible to predict whether legalization of drugs would lead to greater use of drugs. The government would have to play a major role in educating the public on the harmful effects of drugs, as it has done with alcohol and tobacco, and there would have to be restrictions on the use of drugs.

United States, Drugs, Economic aspects, Narcotics, Control of, Narcotics control, Narcotic laws

---

The Drug dilemma: manipulating the demand

Article Abstract:

The US government is faced with the challenge of forcing citizens to reduce their drug use without trampling upon their personal liberty. The issue is particularly pressing in today's climate, where drug abuse is regarded as a major problem. Two opposing views struggle to prevail: that current laws need to be scrapped, and that they need to be strengthened. In spite of polls showing that as many as 80 percent of the people support prohibitory laws, cocaine abuse has grown steadily during the past 15 years. The reasons people take drugs are reviewed. They include liking the effects; the power of stereotyped behavior; the lack of any natural mechanism that ''turns off'' the rewarding effects of the drug; the use earlier in life of nicotine and alcohol, drugs that may lead to cocaine use; and particular environmental and inherited characteristics that promote drug use. The major point in favor of legalization of cocaine concerns the economic advantages; the illicit market would vanish. It is likely this would work only if most (99 percent) of the people were not likely to take cocaine, a situation that could only occur in the context of very strong social sanctions. Prohibition of cocaine aims to make it less available to those who do not use the drug; to defend society from cocaine users; and to protect users from overdose. The intensity of prohibitive efforts, however, is limited by our respect for individual freedom. Rather than focusing efforts on reducing supply, it seems more productive to try to limit demand for cocaine. The ways this might be accomplished are discussed. They include: prevention of drug use in the young; pharmacological treatment and treatment communities; and mass media campaigns. More radical suggestions include: (1) research to compare the effects of funding supply-reduction and demand- reduction programs; (2) better chemical detection techniques; (3) constant ambulatory surveillance (with pagers) of drug abusers; and (4) the development of a safer ''euphoriant'' (drug that makes one ''high''). (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Social aspects, Prevention

---

Drug policy: striking the right balance

Article Abstract:

There is currently debate as to whether illicit psychoactive drugs should be legalized. The policies governing prevention of drug abuse must strike a balance between the harm that is done by the drugs and the harm that results from strict legal prohibitions and their enforcement. A cost-benefit analysis was performed based on pharmacologic, toxicologic, sociologic and historical facts. It was concluded that psychoactive drugs are dangerous to both the users and society in varying degrees, depending on the drug. The toxic effects of various drugs on both a short-term and long-term basis, and the relative risk of addiction, are discussed for the different categories of drugs including: alcohol and related drugs such as benzodiazepines and barbiturates; cocaine and amphetamines; marijuana; nicotine; opiates, and hallucinogens. Drug consumption is strongly influenced by the ease of obtaining the drug. Therefore, it is important to reduce the supply of drugs. But the availability of a drug can be modified in other ways besides prohibition, especially by increasing the price. Education, fashion, and social consensus affect how much a drug is used, and these factors can be modified so that the demand is reduced. It is concluded that if the prohibitions that presently exist were repealed, the situation would be worse than it is now. Policies are needed which are specific to each drug and the dangers that each drug presents. Recommendations to users and to society are provided for limiting the dangers that are caused by each addictive drug. It is concluded that there should be prohibitions on the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, and dangerous hallucinogens. It is also suggested that the penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use should be reduced. Taxes on tobacco and alcohol should be raised so that the price will increase. Treatment for addiction to drugs should be available for everyone who wants it. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Evaluation, Nicotine, Alcohol, Ethanol, Cannabis, Hamamelidae, Legalization of narcotics, Narcotics legalization, Amphetamines, Hallucinogenic drugs

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Innovation in the context of European R&D collaborative programmes: the case of multimedia and the newspaper industry
• Abstracts: Technology creation in the biotechnology sectors: the French connection. Three generation resource-based strategies
• Abstracts: Collaboration in new technology based product markets. Product development in inter-organizational networks. New product development: challenges of globalization
• Abstracts: Understanding buyer behavior in software services - Strategies for Indian firms. A new revolutionary paradigm of software development for mainstream business operations
• Abstracts: Mapping the terrain of hospital work: technological constraints on work design and redesign. Pharmaceutical R&D in an era of managed healthcare: using integrative teams to produce enduring competitive advantage

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.