Introduction
The war on drug and substance abuse is a global concern, and different international organizations led by the United States federal government oversee the war on drugs. As the fight against drugs intensifies, other groups believe legalizing the medication is the antidote to solving the drug challenge. The pro-legalization group presented four main arguments supporting their claim.
The first claim states that legalizing drugs will take away profits from drug deals, hence making the business less appealing. Legalization is also likely to eliminate the black market, and it will reduce crime. Finally, the group argued that drugs should be legalized since the users only harm themselves and have no effect on third parties.
William Bennett is in charge of the war on drugs and responds to the four arguments from the people who believe drugs should be legalized. Since Bennett is passionate about the war on drugs, he refutes and rebuts them all, proving that drugs should never be legalized for the benefit of humanity. Bennett has successfully refuted and issued strong rebuttals against the drug legalization debate because he issued strong points and evidence supporting the claims that drugs should not be legalized.
William Bennett’s Attempt to Refute Wrong Arguments
Self-Harm Argument: Drug Use as a Personal Choice
Refuting a claim is proving it wrong by providing evidence that states otherwise. If an argument is refuted, it can no longer be used as the basis for decision-making. Of the four claims, Bennett refutes the claims that drug addicts harm themselves and that legalization lowers the crime rate.
The argument that drugs must be legalized because addicts only harm themselves is proven to be inaccurate. Humans are social beings who depend on each other for survival, and addicts affect the lives of others. Bennett, while refuting the argument, proved that drug addicts harm others through their actions and omissions. An example of a third party affected by drug addiction, as presented in the literature, is a three-year-old whose mother’s drug-infected boyfriend was murdered. Examining the “corpse of a three-year-old who happened to get in the way of his mother’s drug-crazed boyfriend” (Bennett, 1990, p. 2) is enough proof that drugs must never be legalized.
Most of the drug addicts and people who abuse drugs are family members who expose their relatives to danger. A lactating woman addicted to cocaine often leaves their children searching for drugs. Bennett successfully proved that drug addicts not only harm themselves but also harm others, as the actions of drug addicts affect people in different dimensions.
Legalization as a Crime Reduction Strategy
Bennett further refutes the argument that legalizing drugs will reduce the rate of crime. The argument is premised on the fact that people are involved in crime only to get money to finance their addiction. Although some of the minor crimes may be caused by people raising money for drugs, it does not make it the leading cause of crime.
According to Bennett (1990), most drug-related felonies are committed by people who entered a crime before they started abusing drugs. The argument would have been accurate if all the crimes committed resulted from people raising money to afford drugs. Most major crimes, such as bank robberies and pickpockets, have nothing to do with the cost of acquiring drugs.
In the USA, the children who are the most prominent victims of crime have no connection to the price of drugs, and regardless of whether drugs are legalized or not, the crime rate can only be controlled by other means. In most cases, the “frequent victims of violent, drug-related crimes that have nothing to do with the cost of acquiring the drugs” (Bennett, 1990, p. 2), and legalizing drugs will not reduce crimes. The relationship between crime and drug abuse needs to be clearly defined before deducing that drugs increase the crime rate.
Eliminating Black Markets Through Regulated Distribution
Out of the four arguments, Bennett only rebuts two: the elimination of black markets and the removal of profits. Rebuttal in an argument is pointing out errors in a given squabble and stating new points that contradict the presented claims. The pro-legalization believes that when drugs are stocked in government chemists and local shops, the black markets will be eliminated.
Bennett argues against the claims by introducing new points that some drugs, such as PCP and crack, are dangerous, and even though they may exist by government chemists, they will be sold under strict regulations. Drug addicts will not qualify for the prescription of dangerous drugs, and a gap will exist for the black market.
Bennett further argues that the prices in the black markets are dynamic and are made to serve the clients. When the addicts cannot afford the drugs from the drug stores, they will get them from the clandestine market. If the drugs are finally legalized, “the government must be prepared to sell these deadly variations of dangerous drugs” (Bennett, 1990, p. 1) since most addicts may not be able to afford them.
Undermining Drug Profits by Ensuring Legal Access
The counterargument claims that legalizing drugs will take the profit out of drugs because they will be locally available. The legalizers argue that the high yields are attained because the drug barons do not pay taxes and are the only suppliers in the neighborhoods.
Bennett rebuttals the arguments by creating a hypothetical scenario that will happen when there is a new world of legalized drugs. He points out “that strict quality control and proper labeling will be overseen by the Food and Drug Administration” (Bennett, 1990, pp. 1), meaning that no overdoes will be administered, and the drug addicts will have to be put under the government’s watch. He points out a weakness: since the drugs will be heavily taxed, they will be more expensive, and the local customers will not be able to afford them. Consequently, the black market will be reborn to serve drug addicts and local customers who cannot afford expensive drugs supplied by the government stalls.
Conclusion
The war against drugs is an outgoing global concern and requires universal laws to curb drug-related problems. Although there have been efforts to legalize drugs, they have not been successful in most countries. Failure to legalize drugs is because the arguments for legalization have been refuted and rebuttals issued and could no longer be used to make decisions.
Since Bennett was appointed to take charge of the fight against drugs, he realized that most of the efforts in place to fight drug lords have not been successful. Legalizers and those who support or against drug legalization need to research the long-lasting impacts of the drugs on the government, the drug addicts, and the drug lords. When decisions are made without considering all the factors, the fight against drugs will be flawed. A joint effort is needed in the fight against drug and substance abuse.
Reference
Bennett, W. (1990). Should drugs be legalized? Reader’s Digest, 136, 90. [PDF Document]. Web.