Oregon made history this election cycle when its population voted to decriminalize all drugs. Oregon was not alone in changing drug laws either. Washington D.C. decriminalized the cultivation of psychedelic mushrooms. New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, and South Dakota voted to legalize marijuana, while Mississippi voted to legalize it for medical purposes. This policy change is representative of the direction America seems to be heading concerning the war on drugs.
There are many differing opinions about the war on drugs and its effect on American society and the global community. But one thing seems to be almost unanimously agreed upon; it is a complete and utter failure. As a result, new opinions and goals have entered the discussion over the future of drug prohibition. A recent cultural conversation has emerged; one focused on less punitive measures and drug reform. The solutions proposed vary, ranging from an emphasis on treating addicts to legalization and regulation of all narcotics. But just as these solutions vary, so are the reasons behind them.
In German Lopez’s article, “Should America Legalize All Drugs? This Story Should Give Supporters Pause.” Lopez argues that the government isn’t capable of regulating drugs effectively. He uses the opioid epidemic to prove his case. He blames the regulatory capture of the FDA by pharmaceutical companies on its ineffectiveness. The FDA entrusted a group of pharmaceutical companies with curbing inappropriate uses of medication, and when officials knew off-label prescribing was widespread, intervention rarely happened. He claims the FDA’s failure to act during an opioid epidemic and their late response time to public health crises is why he claims our country is ill-suited to regulate legalized drugs. He relates this to both the tobacco and alcohol industries. He does say that marijuana would probably be okay under the current system as it is a relatively harmless drug. He also briefly discusses the overly punitive aspect of our criminal justice system concerning drug users.
Lopez admits in his paper that before the opioid epidemic, he would have agreed with total legalization and regulation, but that changed because of the American government’s corruption and ineptitude when dealing with the opioid crisis. Perhaps his biggest concern is that newly legalized drugs would follow the tobacco and alcohol industries’ footsteps, lobbying policymakers to implement higher taxes and nutritional labels on their product. As a result, he chooses the middle path between (as he puts it) an excessively harsh criminal justice system and a legal industry carelessly causing drug epidemics. This middle path is the decriminalization of drugs for personal use. Drugs would still be illegal, but you wouldn’t get arrested. He believes that this model will be less corrupt and require fewer government interactions.
Peter Moskos’ article “Two Takes: Drugs Are Too Dangerous Not To Regulate – We Should Legalize Them” argues that drugs are too dangerous to be unregulated. Therefore they must be controlled through regulations.
Interestingly, Moskos is a Baltimore police officer, which may explain his main reason for legalizing drugs. Moskos first tries to relieve those fearful of an increase in public violence should drugs be legalized and regulated. As a police officer, he admits that we can’t reduce supply or demand through force. He claims that prohibition doesn’t work, and by prohibiting an item, you give control over it to criminals. By claiming this, he leaves little option left, but to change the current approach towards narcotics. But what he does when he connects terrorism to the illegal drug trade ensures that those fearful of legalization see an even more significant threat. He says that by continuing prohibition, we are, in essence, funding terrorist and rebel groups globally. These terrorist groups profit from the illicit drug trade and are willing and able to use extreme force if necessary. By claiming a legal drug trade would harm these groups more than military action would, he further delegitimizes a common concern amongst opponents of legalizationㅡan increase in drug use.
He provides the notion that we reduce drug use with education and regulation more than we could by prohibiting these substances, using the decline in cigarette smokers in younger generations to give an example of legalization and regulation reducing drug use. I feel that this is a weak point when contrasted to what follows, as it makes it seem almost unnecessary. He compares the Dutch approach to drug addiction to the American one—the Dutch view drug addiction as a health problem, aiming to save lives and reduce drug use. The Dutch succeed in this. The heroin overdoses in Baltimore alone are three times greater than the overdoses in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the Dutch use drugs at a much lower rate than Americans, being half as likely as an American to have smoked marijuana. By comparing the drug use in the Netherlands to the US, Moskos made sure there could be no doubt that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs decreased the percentage of the populace using narcotics in the Netherlands.
Ethan Nadelmann’s article “The US Needs to Decriminalize Drug Possession Now” brings a new concern to the public discourse surrounding drugs. His essay introduces the role punitive drug laws have on mass incarceration. His article relates America’s attitudes towards drugs with other countries, namely Portugal. He concludes his piece by discussing the growth of public support for legalization and the continued resistance by politicians towards further reform.
Nadelmann’s piece introduces concerns about race and public sentiment in the discussion. Worldwide support for decriminalization has grown. In the US, gentler approaches have begun to gain traction. Nadelmann relates this change in public perception to the various drug epidemics our country has faced. More importantly, the fact that the opioid and fentanyl epidemics ravaged white communities. Nadelmann’s writings would suggest that some people, in his view, lawmakers and enforcers, only considered there to be a problem when their communities were afflicted. The year was 2018 when Nadelmann wrote this piece, but he made a prediction for 2020 that came true. When this was written, support for legalization wasn’t large enough to make ballot initiatives. But as can be seen with Oregon, the direction of public opinion is heading towards reform.
Theodore Dalrymple’s essay, “Don’t Legalize Drugs,” attempts to debunk the positions of those in favor of legalizing narcotics and argues for prohibition based on his personal experience and statistics.
Dalrymple has many concerns over the potential legalization of drugs. Through his work, Dalrymple reveals he comes from a more conservative and traditional mindset than the other authors. One moment from the text is telling of his worldview. When discussing freedom of choice and drug use, Dalrymple states, “It impairs their ability to pursue more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling civic obligations. Very often it impairs their ability to pursue gainful employment and promotes parasitism.” It’s clear what he thinks about recreational drug users, and I suspect it is indicative of a larger whole. The view that recreational drug use is not only unproductive, but it is a detriment to society as a whole.
His preoccupation with family and civic obligations rears themselves throughout the passage. One such incident is demonstrative of the fears over children and narcotics. He adds caution against legalization because dealers would start selling to young children, who would readily accept drugs because of society’s permissive attitude towards drugs. Here, he reveals yet another piece of his actual position, as he refers to the children already being ‘inducted’ into a drug subculture. He displays that not only do people sharing his views heavily concerned with children’s safety, they also view drugs as a threat, an insidious force, one that can recruit followers.
There are many views towards drug reform, with solutions ranging from prohibition to legalization and everything in between. Behind these solutions lie various motives and arguments taking place in the debate. There are concerns over government corruption, government control, public safety and health, race relations, a punitive vs. a rehabilitative response, and many more.
Works Cited
Chandler, Jamie, and Skylar Young. “Legalizing Marijuana Won’t End the War on Drugs.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 14 Mar. 2014, www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-chandler/2014/03/14/legalizing-marijuana-wont-end-the-war-on-drugs.
Dalrymple, Theodore. “Don’t Legalize Drugs.” City Journal, City Journal, 17 June 2019, www.city-journal.org/html/don%E2%80%99t-legalize-drugs-11758.html.
Kreps, Daniel. “Oregon Decriminalizes All Drugs, While D.C. Decriminalizes Psychedelics.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 4 Nov. 2020, www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/oregon-decriminalizes-all-drugs-while-d-c-decriminalizes-psychedelics-1085109/.
Lopez, German. “Should America Legalize All Drugs? This Story Should Give Supporters Pause.” Vox, Vox, 6 Aug. 2018, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17649036/fda-fentanyl-opioid-epidemic-drug-legalization.
Moskos, Peter. “Two Takes: Drugs Are Too Dangerous Not to Regulate-We Should Legalize Them.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 25 July 2008, www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/07/25/two-takes-drugs-are-too-dangerous-not-to-regulate–we-should-legalize-them.
Nadelmann, Ethan. “The U.S. Needs to Decriminalize Drug Possession Now.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 26 Nov. 2018, www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/united-states-decriminalize-drug-possession-nadelmann-760001/.
Cosner Rhetoric 