Introduction
One of the most debated public issues is the War on Drugs. There is no argument that excessive substance consumption is a negative phenomenon, both physically and socially. Yet, there are opposing viewpoints on the effectiveness of the US anti-drug policies. They both stem from different interpretations of the question of whether drug crimes are caused by inefficient law enforcement or by inadequacy of the overall policy. A comparison of the points made by opponents and proponents of drug decriminalization will showcase the similarities and differences between their overviews of the causes of drug crimes.
Discussion
The first viewpoint is the idea that the abundance of drug crimes is the direct result of the availability of illegal narcotics. Proponents of this explanation believe that addictive substances are inherently dangerous precisely because they cause addiction (Wheeldon & Heidt, 2022). The more addicted a certain individual becomes, the less they are able to control themselves. As a result, when drug users have access to substances, they will most likely perpetrate. Therefore, the government should restrict the availability of drugs in order to reduce temptation and create more obstacles to obtaining drugs. The subsequent implication is that the current legal measures are insufficient and should be enhanced.
It is intriguing that the opponents of drug decriminalization actually agree with its proponents on its danger. Both sides agree that substance abuse causes problems for health and society. However, they disagree in terms of the solutions to this problem. Those who favor the War on Drugs believe that most people are not able to control themselves (Wheeldon & Heidt, 2022). The inability to regulate one’s own behavior causes them to consume substances, become addicted, and spread this habit to other people. This assumption distinguishes the anti-decriminalization viewpoint thus supporting the War on Drugs.
The second viewpoint is the idea that the current statistics of drug crimes are caused by the anti-drug policy. First, strict prohibition allows the black market to thrive due to the absence of taxation (Kavousi et al., 2022). Second, the flow of narcotics is more difficult to track because of the absence of official monitoring. Finally, drug cartels make more profit since most of the trade transpires via their channels. Counter-intuitively, the more government tightens control, the more opportunity criminals have to obtain and use drugs.
Once again, there is consensus that drug use does cause emotional, physical, and social problems. Furthermore, both proponents and opponents argue for the governmental regulation of drugs. However, those who favor decriminalization believe that a certain degree of criminal activity will always be present due to the strong allure of narcotics. Instead of pushing drug trafficking into the black market, it would be more effective to regulate and control addictive substances officially. The fewer substances are criminalized, the less incentive there is for users to turn to drug cartels and engage with criminals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the problem of drug abuse is both a uniting and divisive public issue. It is generally agreed that addictions cause negative behaviors and require official interventions. However, the means of governmental involvement in the sphere of narcotics is disputed. Proponents of the War on Drugs find it insufficient to curb the proliferation of addictive substances. Meanwhile, decriminalization activists argue that prohibition inadvertently benefits drug cartels. Even though the current governmental policy is to fight drug proliferation by criminalizing it, more people adopt a viewpoint doubting the effectiveness of the War on Drugs.
References
Kavousi, P., Giamo, T., Arnold, G., Alliende, M., Huynh, E., Lea, J., & Taylor, K. (2022). What do we know about opportunities and challenges for localities from Cannabis legalization?. Review of Policy Research, 39(2), 143-169.
Koram, K. (2022). The legalization of cannabis and the question of reparations. Journal of International Economic Law, 25(2), 294-311.
Wheeldon, J., & Heidt, J. (2022). Cannabis and criminology: A history of race, addiction, and inconvenient research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1-16.