Criminology 101 – The war on drugs.
Enforcing drug laws
* drug dealers richer
* increased drug related violence
* corrupted law enforcement
* dissuaded drug abusers from seeking medical help.
“ to legalize illicit drugs, stop arresting drug users and focus entirely on treatment”. * unrealistic
thus Goode argues “ the optimal strategy is a program focused largely on…reducing the damage that both drug abuse and the war on drugs illicit on users and society at large”.
Legalization (wide spectrum)
1. Legalize possession of drugs but regulate how they are sold.
* no state control whatsoever.
Most agree that law enforcement should not and cannot solve the problem of drug abuse.
Legalization – Harm reduction
Harm reductionists are more pragmatic
Concerned with the health of the community than individual rights. Cost and benefit wise.
Pessimistic about legalization and should be a policy on drug by drug basis
Argue that this would decrease death, disease, predatory crime and other costs.
* America referred to as a dope fiend’s paradise. (Edward Brecher), (1800s)
During the early first half of the century, kids were allowed to drink, military and politicians were allowed to distribute alcohol.
Per-capita alcohol consumption more than three times what it is today.
The 1900’s, under a more laissez-faire policy, not many narcotics and not much crime offender related to drug use.
Now, drug offenders rate hike up.
Prohibitionists argue Reagan’s war on drug is a success.
Because use among adolescents and young adults declined dramatically during 1980s.
1.beginning of early 1990s’ rates of recreational drug use increased among young people.
2. Today’s high school students more than twice likely to use marijuana and more than four times likely to use other illicit drugs.
3. During his presidency, the purity of Coke and Heroine increased while price decreased.
Lessons learned from Banning alcohol.
* prohibition can work partially at least for a while to discourage use. * But costly mistake : enriched and empowered organized crime, increased murders, generated disrespect for the law, encouraged corruption among government officials and drove people to drink toxic bootleg substitutes. = prohibiting illicit substances may result in unanticipated results.
* behavior that is in the mainstream of the American culture probably cannot be successfully prohibited. But behavior that runs through against the grain may be an altogether different matter.
Lessons learned from decriminalizing marijuana.
* Decriminalization (small fine over jail time) = removing criminal penalties did not result in opening of floodgate of marijuana use. Thus saves money at relatively little risk to public health. * Decriminalization does not necessarily lead to increase in consumption.
Drug in economic sense.
* Elasticity between price and drug influence the demand. * Different drugs different results, Heroin = only drops 0.2 to 0.3 percent for every 1 percent increase in price. Marijuana = more larger, 1 percent for every 1 percent increase in price. Cigarettes (0.4 decrease) , alcohol ( 0.7 percent decrease) fall.
* prohibitionists = would directly increase the price of drugs and decrease the rates of usage.
* Legalization = would lower costs but less property crime rate.
* Prohibitionists predict legalization lead to tens of millions of people using marijuana. But it will increase in heavy users not ordinary non-users.
* plus, when drugs are legalized, the government can use the tax to lower the price and discourage use. (Current state and federal taxes on legal drugs- alcohol and tobacco-are far too low at less than 50cents per drink on 1 dollar pack of cigarettes to significantly deter drinking and smoking).
Please join StudyMode to read the full document