Marijuana Remaining Illegal

In the article, “5 Reasons Marijuana Should Remain Illegal,” John Hawkins claims that the drug is extremely addictive, hasn’t worked in Amsterdam, is terrible for your physical and mental health, and that it has decimated many people’s lives. Early into the article Hawkins manages to counter his own “extremely addictive” point by citing Dr. Drew. Dr. Drew states, “It’s not very addictive for many people. It’s a small subset of people with a genetic potential for addiction. But for them it is really tough.” Those statements can be made for any form of medication legally sold via prescription. If the drug is administered in a controlled environment then individuals with this genetic predisposition for addiction would be sorted out and informed of the dangers of their ingesting the drug. Many drugs, including marijuana, are beneficial to the user but may have adverse side effects. This doesn’t stop Big Pharma from over prescribing other drugs.

John Hawkins’ argument surrounding legal marijuana in Amsterdam stands on weak legs as well. He tells the reader that the government is imposing a ban on non-Dutch residents partaking in the coffee shops and that the crime rates around coffee shops is alarmingly high. With just a little more research, one finds that the reason this regulation came down was due to neighboring countries that haven’t legalized marijuana. Drug tourists, or couriers who drive over the border to buy large amounts of cannabis, which they resell at home are the cause for this regulation. The crime that Hawkins’ speaks of is traffic and public disorder issues near the border due to individuals trying to sneak it into their country. It has nothing to do with the consumption of the product. The problems arising in Amsterdam in regards to marijuana have nothing to do with their country, but with other countries who have yet to legalize the drug.

Hawkins suggests that, “most habitual marijuana users come off as stupid,” and that, “The drug is making them stupider, even when they’re not high.” This is complete fallacy and it is apparent that the man clearly has an agenda. There are many articles that can be found that show the peak in intellectual creativity brought on by cannabis use. I know what you’re thinking, “Well what about long-term mental effects?” The Harvard University Gazette did a study entitled Intelligence, cognition unaffected by heavy marijuana use. In the study it was found that heavy marijuana use had no permanent effects 28 days after cessation.

Any physical problems due to smoking the drug is purely user responsibility as we are all aware that smoking anything can cause physical harm. This is not due impart to the cannabis ingested, but to the tar associated with all forms of smoking. One should simply find a healthier way to ingest. Many dispensaries have vaporizer bags or pens that work the same as smoking, yet doesn’t offer the nasty physical side effects. If you eat chicken raw you are subjecting yourself to physical harm, there is no difference with this. You not only have to smart about what you put into your body, but how you go about it.

His final argument about the drug decimating peoples’ lives is opinionated and doesn’t deserve much of a response as the evidence he uses to support his claim is based around his previous arguments. Reading Mr. Hawkins’ article was humorous, as upon completing the reading I realized that he went to college to do this occupation for a living. Maybe if he would have taken a trip to Amsterdam during his college years his writing style wouldn’t have suffered from such a lack of creativity and well thought out points.

Reform Now

Global News Post published an article on the good of the War on Drugs. The authors of this post argue that prohibition of certain drugs such as marijuana or alcohol for example, create a bigger problem. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard lecturer writes, “Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.” He then proceeds to add, “Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.”

They unfairly use the U.S. national debt cost and prison rates in their favor to essentially explain the benefits for this war on drugs. The authors write of how prohibition would cost taxpayers dearly due to prison expenses, all the while education falls. Bringing up monetary values such as the amount of money taxpayers would save if the U.S. taxed them like tobacco or alcohol products is just a feeble attempt to persuade a reader using pathos. There is no true logical argument in this entire argument. Another appeal to pathos is how the article states that the U.S. has forcefully made countries like Egypt and Cambodia, who have long had traditions of smoking marijuana for example, ban that drug. This is supposed to make a reader feel bad for these other countries and want the U.S to change. However, in my opinion, these are all emotional appeals that garner a quick reaction without truly looking at the facts.

Another source I came across that was similar to this Global Post article was on Taki’s Magazine. Some of the arguments for not banning drugs is the nature of the criminals that engage in illegal drug activity. The magazine states, “Their [drug dealers] violation of the drug laws is not so much an expression of their natural rights as it is the manifestation of their naturally anti-social characteristics.” Other arguments include that before the drug war began, there were less SWAT and police shootings. They also argue that the reason for all the steam this war on drugs receive is because it is much harder to It’s much harder to prove burglary, rape, and murder than it is to prove a drug offense. This kind of thinking makes an argument not credible. One cannot deem which crimes are more difficult to process and use that as a reason for disbanding such a heavy topic.

 

Throughout all of this however, I was able to come across arguments that greatly refuted majority of the claims made by these pervious sources. This came from one of my favorite sources in Counter Punch. They laid out numerous benefits to the war on drugs included but not limited to the following: “Via programs like DARE, it has turned kids into drug informants who monitor their parents for the authorities” and “It has enabled local police forces to undergo military training, create paramilitary SWAT teams that operate just like the U.S. military in an occupied enemy country, get billions of dollars’ worth of surplus military weaponry.”

Overall, these arguments, though rich in text, the content seems to draw solely on the emotional effects it has on readers. These appeals are aimlessly attempting to drive a wedge between what we as a country need and what we have, falsifying information that makes at look at the wrong picture.

A Racist, Deadly War

On the independent news blog, Activist Post, Eric Blur implies that minority suppression and a high death toll as a result of the Drug War are good things (Clearly, Blur also implies his high level of stupidity). In his December 8, 2011 article, “10 Ways the War on Drugs is a Success,” Blur absurdly claims that the United States has been winning the War on Drug so far, which can be seen in a variety of ways. For example, Blur actually claimed that drug violence justifies tough gun laws. First of all, how can drug violence be justified in any way when it has ultimately led to the death of thousands? If drugs were legalized, there would be no need for tough gun laws. Since 2006, the death toll from the Drug War has been greater than the death toll in the war in Iraq. Blur is completely ignorant in claiming that the fact that we have had to toughen gun laws could possibly be a benefit.

Blur continues on make a completely racist and ignorant argument for the support of the Drug War by claiming that, “it is a huge success for those who wish to suppress minority populations.” To argue against the War on Drugs, we often use this point of African-Americans and Latinos making up the majority of drug-related incarcerations as a bad thing. The fact that minorities are suppressed so highly in the Drug War demonstrates the inequitable treatment by the criminal justice system through law enforcement’s focus on urban areas, on lower-income communities and on communities of color. To actually claim that this racist practice is an advantage certainly shows the lack of morality of Mr. Burr (along with his lack of intelligence). The political cartoon below illustrates how the War on Drugs is the modern-day equivalent to slavery and discrimination.

Blur’s other ludicrous argument for the War on Drugs is that it is effective at preventing high unemployment rates in the U.S. since many incarcerated people have committed drug-related crimes. Blur is now implying that those incarcerated for drugs could not possibly be useful members of society (which again demonstrates his lack of intelligence and morality). If those incarcerated for drugs were released, there would be a greater opportunity for the general greater advancement of our society. Who is Blur to insinuate that those incarcerated are not capable of finding jobs or creating a better future for themselves? The more people there are contributing to our society, the more contributed ideas and the more overall progression. Additionally, there would be thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of more jobs created in order to prevent drug use of minors and in the creation of new age-restricted laws, area-restricted laws for the recreational use of the newly-legalized drugs.

Blur’s arguments for the advocacy of the War on Drugs seems like a desperate attempt to try and justify what everyone knows is a failed war.

Drugs and Terrorism

The War on Drugs began in 1971 after Richard Nixon declared that drugs were harming our society.  He said, “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.” Over forty years later, the War on Drugs is still a widely contested issue in the United States with many people for and against it.

Malcolm Beith argues that there are really not any attractive alternatives to what is currently happening regarding the War on Drugs. In the September 2013 issue of Foreign Affairs, Beith’s article, titled “A Single Act of Justice How the Age of Terror Transformed the War on Drugs,” says that we are winning the War on Drugs. Beith states the total amount of people who are arrested annually on drug charges and why people think the justice system is racist due to the amount of minorities that are locked up on drug offenses. After 9/11, the War on Drugs changed. No longer was the United States trying to stop illicit drugs from entering our country, but it also became a way to combat terrorism. Many of the well-known drug traffickers that have recently been arrested have been involved in terrorist-related activities. Drugs carry with them a plethora of problems that the government is trying to get rid of.

While alcohol and tobacco are legal in the United States, they are still dangerous substances that kill thousands of people every year. The black market for illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine causes an increase in demand and creates an artificially high price for them. Drugs fund terrorist organizations like the Taliban and gangs in general and keep them powerful and afloat. By ending the War on Drugs, the violence associated with the drug trade would decrease, similarly to what happened before and after the Prohibition Era. An article written by the University at Albany, titled “Organized Crime and Prohibition,” found that “Not only did the number of serious crimes increase, but crime became organized. Criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol or drugs, gambling and prostitution.”[3] The same thing is happening with the War on Drugs, where organizations are profiting off illegal drugs, and crime is continuing to increase. Also, too much money is being spent on the War on Drugs that should be going to other causes like ending poverty and improving our health care system. Therefore, the United States should end the War on Drugs.