 | Arguments for and against drug prohibition: Encyclopedia II - Arguments for and against drug prohibition - Compromise
Arguments for and against drug prohibition - Compromise
Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might satisfy both pro and con of this issue, as well as solving many of the problems that drugs cause. In a compromise, drugs would remain illegal, but drug addicts who are non-violent and are convicted for drug possession would go to a drug rehabilitation clinic instead of prison. (Currently, treatment is available for only about 15% of the U.S.'s drug addicts. Now, some people convicted of minor drug offenses may be sentenced to rehabilitation instead of prison.) Drug addicts would then be treated as the diseased, and not treated as criminals. It is said that the drug addict already lives in a cage for life --- his/her addiction. Possession of drugs would be an infraction rather than a felony. Drug dealers, violent drug addicts/possessers, and addicts who possess a large quantity of drugs (probably for sale and not personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons.
This would greatly reduce overcrowded prison populations and increase real prison time for serious criminals such as murderers. For example, a murderer who is sentenced 20 years to life, but who only serves 7 actual years due to prison overcrowding, will serve about 10 years of real time when the compromise reduces prison population. By being soft on minor criminals, penalties become harder on major criminals who commit victim crimes.
Decriminalization of drugs would allow addicts to receive medical aid and free drugs from the clinic. Drug addicts would come back to the clinic regularly for the free drugs. Drug dealers would be unable to sell their drugs to addicts who get the drugs for free. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drugs are illegal in order to sell drugs. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminals. The number of robberies would be reduced - formerly committed by addicts who spend the stolen money on drugs. There would be fewer police deaths because there would be no shootouts between drug dealers and police. Drug pushers would not be walking around asking people if they want to buy drugs as in the Netherlands (where drugs are legal [not true ... hard drugs, which is what the pushers are pushing, are very much illegal; even cannabis is still technically illegal, it's just 'tolerated' ... see http://www.thesite.org.uk/travelandfreetime/travel/beingthere/amsterdamdruglaws, or something more authoritative if you prefer]), because they will go to jail, as usual.
Decriminalization has several central problems. Providing addicts with drugs requires a large amount of funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this is essentially the same thing as legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may exacerbate problems. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market culture (i.e. organized crime and dealer disputes), the benefits of decriminalization will be overshadowed by the continuing violence, people will feel its not working, and prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market culture. It's also not morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess, or if not actually legal, only a civil offense. Finally, the large outflux of offenders from prison concomitant with the implementation of this policy would be difficult if not impossible to manage especially when considering the large amount of rehabilitation resources required.
Some critics of decriminalization claim that in many ways it represents the "worst of both worlds" where low level drug use is tolerated but most of the problems associated with drug criminalization remain.
Other related archivesAIDS, African-Americans, American Medical Association, Andean, Brazil, Cannabis, Colombia, Decriminalization, Demand reduction, Drug addiction, Drug policy of the Netherlands, Drug possession, Food and Drug Administration, HIV, Harm reduction, Illegal drug trade, James P. Gray, John Ball, Marijuana, Netherlands, Peru, Perverse incentive, Prohibition, Prohibition (drugs), Recreational drug use, Schedule I, South America, Temperance movement, Twenty-first Amendment, War on Drugs, addictive, alcohol, alcohol prohibition, black market, capitalist, cocaine, consumption, crack cocaine, decriminalization, drug rehabilitation, felony, free market, gambling, health effects of tobacco smoking, heroin, infraction, mala in se, marijuana, marketing, opioids, overeating, paramilitary, powder cocaine, prescription, prohibition, prohibition of drugs, psychological addiction, rehabilitation, socialist, tobacco, war on drugs
 Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Compromise", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki |
