The war against drugs in the United States has reached a new level. Such an outcome is conditional upon the recent measures that politicians are discussing. More specifically, they are related to the emergence of an idea to legalize drug consumption in order to decrease the number of drug addicts in the long run. Moreover, this measure would allow the government to combat drug pushers by offering the product, which is cheaper, safer, and, what is more important, legal. This initiative is still under consideration and finds both supporters and opponents. The problem is that no one can predict the results of passing the drug law. European countries’ experience with such policies does not guarantee the similarity between the processes in different countries. Therefore, anti-drug activists such as William Bennett present their views on the matter. In his article, “Should drugs be legalized?” Bennett provides a series of arguments against the drug law and thereby highlights the controversy of the attempts to pass it.
The first and second arguments that he considers are politicians’ beliefs that the legalization of drugs will take the profits out of the industry and eliminate the black market. However, it is not as simple as it seems, and Bennett rebuts this idea by proving its inconsistency and providing an alternative view on the issue. From his perspective, selling drugs in regular shops will not harm the business of pushers, as they will keep producing some dangerous types of them, which the government will never produce. Hence, the black market will prosper, and the illegality of drugs it offers can even increase their attractiveness for addicts. As for the government, the only achievement, in this case, will be sharing “the drug profits now garnered by criminals.” It allows concluding that the opponents of drug legalization merely do not wish to see the government becoming an official drug dealer. Nevertheless, such a course of events will be impossible to turn once the law is passed, and the government will have to keep up with the competition on the market.
The third argument that Bennett refutes is the positive impact of drug legalization on the United States’ crime rate. He proves it wrong by presenting the fact that most crimes committed by criminals with drug addiction took place before they started taking them. Indeed, drugs can enhance the probability of such felonies but only for the people who were previously involved in similar activities. According to Bennett, over the time he spent traveling throughout the country, he did not see any signs of the probability that “lower drug prices would reduce crime.” In most cases, especially when children are involved, there is no connection between the price and the crime rate. Therefore, the argument of supporters of drug legalization has proved to be inconsistent in terms of reducing crime rates. In this case, Bennett only refutes the statement but does not provide an alternative perspective. It might be connected to the fact that there is no link between the two measurements, which are drug prices and crime rates.
The fourth argument that drug legalization is the best method since addicts harm only themselves contradicts the information presented in the third argument. Hence, Bennett rebuts it by outlining the cases of casualties among children related to drug addicts or people who happened to meet them when they could not control themselves. Moreover, the author cites the statement of a former cocaine addict, thereby complementing the views of politicians and their supporters on drug legalization by the opinion of a person with real experience in the sphere. According to him, one cannot fully understand what it feels like to be totally irresponsible for any actions and “borrowing money from people you know you cannot pay back.” In this way, the author of the article provides an alternative view using the words of a former drug addict. In the end, he expresses the idea that drug legalization would turn into modern slavery rather than help people live their lives to the fullest.
The article written by William Bennett is extremely useful as it combines the concerns of opponents of drug legalization and offers its supporters to resolve such issues before passing the law. Out of the four arguments presented by the author, three were rebutted, and only one refuted. Hence, he allows the reader to see the other side of the coin by expanding the awareness of citizens about the consequences of drug legalization. In short, the involvement of the government does not make its policy efficient but turns it into one of the competitors on the drug market, and this decision will not eliminate black markets. Moreover, the choice of drug consumption or refusal from it cannot be the sole responsibility of a person as he or she affects many other people, especially children. As for the refuted argument, there is no correlation between crime rates and drug addiction, and this issue requires further consideration.