Viewpoints in the Drug Decriminalization Debate

Several fallacies of prohibition lead people to support the alternative of decriminalization. Firstly, illicit drugs are still available and, in fact, have become cheaper, more potent, and easily accessible. Secondly, the illegal status of intravenous drugs, such as heroin, produces a short supply of needles, leading to the spread of HIV/Aids and Hepatitis C. Money spent on health costs to treat such diseases drains society as well as taxpayers’ wallets. Finally, the stigma attached to addicts, especially those with convictions, decreases one’s chances for education and employment.

Supporters of decriminalization have many other reasons why the current policy of prohibition is not working. One reason is the forbidden fruit factor. Quite simply, people want what they cannot have. That which is prohibited becomes an excuse for rebellion. The allure of wanting what you cannot have romanticizes drug use. The romantic notion glorifies drug dealers, who show off their expensive jewelry and designer clothing. Teenagers especially want to emulate this lifestyle and abandon legitimate jobs in search of quick cash. The entire lifestyle of drug use becomes glorified.

Another argument is the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal. Alcohol and tobacco account for approximately 20% of all yearly deaths in the United States alone. Marijuana, on the other hand, has no record in its entire history of death. While people have options to seek help for alcoholism and quitting smoking, it is difficult for users of illicit drugs to seek help because of the stigma surrounding illegal drugs. The addict is immoral and criminal, and therefore unworthy of medical attention.

A third factor is the amount of impurities currently found in illegal drugs. Many illegal drugs are cut with another substance in order for the dealer to increase his/her profit. This in turn increases the opportunities for unexpected effects as well as overdoses. If legalized, addiction would become a public health issue, and drugs could be controlled for purity and dosage. The government would enforce quality control.

Finally, the inability to conduct medical research on certain chemicals creates a strong argument for decriminalization. The illegality of recreational drugs consequently makes it illegal to pursue medical research on such substances. Schedule I drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy, and LSD, have no medical value. Many drugs are thrown into this category before there is even a chance to do research. In fact, before made illegal, studies have shown ecstasy to be beneficial in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

In conclusion, many factors are at play in the decriminalization debate. Although there are two existing viewpoints on how to approach the problem, one thing is clear: the criminal justice approach only demoralizes people. It makes it difficult for addicts to ask for help. It punishes the casual user with extreme mandatory minimum sentences. It overcrowds prisons with non-violent offenders. Although decriminalization has its benefits, it is still unfortunately not considered a serious alternative to prohibition within the United States by many individuals.