"Would the decriminalization of drugs, together with the continued non-criminalization of alcohol, really take us beyond some crucial threshold of harm and badness?"
Sher, a professor, took aim at the idea of across-the-board decriminalization. And he compared alcohol laws(non-laws) to drug laws. The idea is to determine what is high-impact drug use, and also review how we deal with low-impact use, as prison/jail has not deterred many, while costing billions.
I do agree with Sher, that certain "low-impact" drugs, such as marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol, should not exist in a criminal environment. Of course, marijuana is less harmful upon society, than say heroin or painkiller narcotics. In some of the latest data, compiled by the United States Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, synthetic marijuana is causing more hospital visits than marijuana itself. Which begs the question, Is the judicial branch creating more problems, in this regard? I believe so.
I do not believe, for one second, that all marijuana "patients" are really medical patients. And law enforcement knows this and wants to go after those folks. Is that really necessary? What is the impact of legalizing marijuana?
There may be valid arguments on both sides. Arguments for continued criminal status of low-impact drugs include: Legalized marijuana would lead to a black market of marijuana crime; legalized weed would encourage youth to smoke marijuana; and marijuana leads to other, much harder drugs.
These arguments are in addition to society's dependence on socially accepted norms such as the health effects of marijuana being a reason to limit its access. I agree, marijuana is not healthy. But I would also argue that tobacco is unhealthier than marijuana. A study done by the University of California at San Francisco, suggests that heavy use of both substances can do damage, with tobacco doing significant damage.
19% of all U.S. adults smoked tobacco every day in 2011.
Each day, 4,000 youth try a cigarette for the first time.
In 2013, U.S. states collected $25.7 billion in tobacco taxes and legal settlement tobacco payments.
Those states will spend 1.8% of that 25 billion on prevention.
Funding with just 15% of those revenues, would fund prevention tactics, according to the CDC.
The tobacco industry spent more than $8 billion on advertising in 2013.
What we are seeing here, is a money lobby, ruling the roost. At the expense of Americans. I used to smoke, and I liked to smoke, but after almost three years of not smoking, I am happy that I could quit.
In America, we have laws that classify low-level drugs as extremely dangerous, yet we allow massive targeting by tobacco and alcohol. Both, by many accounts, are far more dangerous than many "drugs."
So, to target an out-of-control system of criminalizing drugs and spending massive amounts of money on enforcement and prosecution, maybe we should address overhauling the classification of drug use in America. Maybe we should ask ourselves, how dangerous is heroin? Marijuana? Vodka?
Maybe, we should look at more responsible drinking, and ways to implement that focus. Can we reasonably have severe drunk-driving laws, laws that induce a much lower occurrence of drunk-driving incidents?
I know there are some, that will never let go of a certain paternal instinct to "wipe out drug use," but I argue that those theories are ineffective and outdated. There is, indeed, a line to draw, in regard to what is an "impact" drug. But what about "impact" situations? Let's assume two cocaine users, one a white professional male, and the other, a white professional hooker. Both are capable of low-impact drug use, and also high-impact use. Either one may have a heart attack in traffic, get caught in a deal gone bad, or simply steal to support habits. Just as either one may get high, and never leave home. Even if home is a two-bit hotel.
Methamphetamine, "crank" or "speed" on the street, is considered an extremely addictive drug by the medical profession, and because of this, creates an intense addict. If that addict is a complete menace in society, legal avenues should be exercised. But, if that addict is harmless, the addict who doesn't steal, deal, rob, and disrespect, then maybe we should consider an alternative to jail. Treatment perhaps?
Pharmaceutical abuse in America, may also not be considered criminal, in some situations. The idea here, is to distinguish between criminal activity and addiction. And to highlight where the two intersect. An addict who is rarely acting criminal, should be evaluated as a medical patient. An addict who drives a motor vehicle, on the other hand, needs to be reprimanded AND treated.
It is simply a more proactive and efficient system that I seek. All input is welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment