Source 1
Crumpton, Ron. "Drug Laws Trump Constitutional Rights." UAB Kaleidoscope. University of Alabama at Birmingham, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 9 Apr. 2011. <www.uab.edu>.
The writer of this article is trying to defend the claim that current drug laws violate our constitutional rights as Americans. It is undoubtedly an opinion piece, and he believes that there are illegal drugs with the potential for positive use as medical and scientific tools. He specifically references marijuana, and the fact that it is a prescribed as a successful remedy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He tells the story of Michael Lapihuska, who is legally prescribed marijuana in his home state of California to treat his PTSD and clinical depression. He now faces a possible 10 year prison sentence for being found in possession of one gram of marijuana wall traveling through the state of Alabama.
While it is clear that the writer has a heavy bias against the War on Drugs, he provides a strong case for his claims. The story of Michael Lapihuska, a legal medical marijuana patient facing criminal charges for taking his medicine, is a powerful one. It raises some important questions, many of which coincide with my original research questions. Why is someone being arrested for possession of a substance "found to be less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, or acetaminophen"? The writer provides no citation for many such references or statistics, but my own supplemental research has verified them. Other questions include: "What is the point of imposing such an exaggerated sentence upon the perpetrator of a victimless crime? Do you want to pay your taxes so that the state of Alabama can house a prisoner for the possession of one joint?"
The case of Michael Lapihuska is useful in my discussion of the illegal versus legal drug paradox in the U.S., since it supports the claim that many illegal drugs are not as dangerous as they are made out to be (especially those prescribed as medicine by doctors in many states).The writer also touches on some more of the failures of the War on Drugs:
"During the escalation of the war on drugs in the 1990s, the United States Justice Department promoted its actions as an effort to take down the drug lords. However, 80 percent of the increased arrests were for marijuana possession.If you are convicted of possession of marijuana, your chances of serving prison time are four percent greater than those of someone convicted of trafficking marijuana – 31 percent of marijuana users are sentenced to jail or prison time; traffickers, 27 percent....We have spent millions upon millions of dollars in South America eradicating coca, but there is more cocaine in America than ever.We eradicate marijuana grown in the U.S., which just means more marijuana coming from Mexico and more money going into the hands of Mexican drug cartels."
Source 2
Mendoza, Martha. "Report: Drug War a Failure." Associated Press. The Houston Chronicle, 13 May 2010. Web. 09 Apr. 2011. <www.chron.com>.
This article is a report on the status of the failing War on Drugs. Martha Mendoza of the Associated Press writes about several different aspects of the Drug War and its related issues in America, including drug cartels in Mexico and the immense spending costs of our current policy. For the most part she lets her sources speak for themselves, although it is clear that she is in favor of a serious change to our nation's drug policy. Her sources differ in their approach to the problem, but they are all certainly supporting the claim that the Drug War is a failure and needs to change, if not end completely.
The article is reinforced with solid and reliable sources, such as U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, his predecessor John P. Walters, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The Associated Press' intensive investigation of the Obama Administration's drug-fighting budget and the effectiveness of the programs it funds was eye-opening. Nixon first launched the Drug War with a budget of $100 million. "Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation."
These are some of the places they tracked where the spending goes:
$20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.
"$33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.
$49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.
$121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.
$450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses."
This article supports my argument for decriminalization because it stresses that America's drug problem will not change unless it is treated as a public health issue as opposed to a criminal justice issue. Contrary to his claim's of making just that change if elected, "Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users. About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment."
'Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.
"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."'
Source 3
Swoope, Kelly. "Study Says Alcohol Is More Damaging to the Body than Illegal Drugs like Heroin and Cocaine." ABC2. ABC News, 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <www.abc2news.com>.
Kelly Swoope wrote this as an informative article describing a recent study published in the medical journal, Lancet, that showed alcohol to be more dangerous and damaging to the body than a whole slue of illegal drugs including cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and even crystal meth. British scientists examined these substances for their properties of addictiveness, bodily harm, economic costs (i.e. healthcare, social services, prison), and even their "role in breaking up families." Although the findings of their study is in support of my argument, the writer is not trying to push any opinion for or against decriminalization. There may be a slight bias, but she is keeping a mainly objective position as she reports on the medical study.
Swoope relies on the experts involved in the study and the study's results for the content of her article instead of inserting her own opinion. She points out that these experts "hope the study will prompt countries to re-evaluate how they classify drugs, build educational programs and recognize the damage caused by alcohol."
The study referenced in this article provides support in my discussion of the paradox of illegal versus legal drugs in this country. It backs the claim that legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than most illegal drugs, and that both our government and its citizens need to seriously re-examine the current drug policy.
"...alcohol far surpasses drugs in terms of overall health burden . Hard-core drugs are by far the most lethal to individuals. But alcohol, when drunk in excess, damages nearly all organ systems, leads to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime."
It isn't clear which drugs she means by "Hard-core drugs" and her statement that they are "by far more lethal to individuals" seems contradictory. My other sources have confirmed that alcohol is responsible for tens of thousands of more deaths than illegal drug use (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30). Either way, this article is another support to the idea that the current Drug War and policy is neither logical nor effective.
Source 4
Szalavitz, Maia. "Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?" TIME. TIME Inc., 26 Apr. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <www.time.com/>.
Maia Szalavitz stays objective in her report although the content is pretty clearly in favor of decriminalization, and sticks to her sources to back up any opinion or bias that may come through. Her article in TIME Magazine tells the success story of the "first European country to officially abolish criminal penalties for all drugs". It is a direct answer to the question of whether decriminalization could really work. Portugal decriminalized all drugs including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in 2001 and has seen only positive changes since. With a new policy that gives addicts and those found in possession of drugs treatment instead of incarceration (which is far cheaper by comparison), the successes of the policy have been astounding:
"...between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well."
This is another article supporting the claim that America needs to re-examine its drug policies, and realize that the Drug War is not reducing drug use. Decriminalization has been shown to increase the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction and reduce the number of illegal drug users in general. This example reinforces my argument against the harsh drug policy and the War on Drugs in America when it states that statistically, "...America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use."
This article makes it clear that the current Drug War is ineffective and needs to change, and even if decriminalization seems like an extreme alternative for the U.S., the figures are undeniable.
"Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana."
Additional/Gap Fill Sources:
"Annual Causes of Death in the United States." Drug War Facts. Common Sense for Drug Policy. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30>.
Wooldridge, Howard. "Modern Prohibition and Individual Liberty." Campaign For Liberty. 31 July 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=150>.
