Research Paper
November 2, 2012
Drugs vs. Liberty

Drugs are good. The problem lies within the illegal status they have. This causes for illegal activity and results in violence. The U.S. government should embrace the problem head on with the constitution being the template. The banning of substances is politically and morally powered without the participation of the citizen’s voice. The demagoguery of the American government towards the drug policy is the central problem in achieving a morally liberated and just country. History as a subject is taught to gain knowledge about the past and for us not to make the same mistakes again. The U.S. government should take this fundamental skill and apply it to there current position to illegal drugs. In January 19, 1919, Congress ratified the 18th Amendment, banning the manufacture, sale and transport of alcoholic beverages. Responsible Americans, who just wanted a drink, were turned into criminals. Taverns became underground speakeasies (having to speak quiet and carefully about an illegal liquor establishment). Criminal bootleggers replaced lawful liquor manufacturers, and gang warfare and criminal activity was created. Alcohol that was made during prohibition was more dangerous than before due to the lack of standards that one would of had to abide by. The Repeal of Prohibition was accomplished with the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution on December 5, 1933. As Mark Thornton stated in his Cato Policy Analysis No. 157 “The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the growing efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.” A key concern has been the rise in crime over the years. A major cause of this increase in crime is the illegal trafficking of drugs. Tony Payan discusses the Mexico-U.S border in terms of the cartels in his book The Three U.S. Mexico Border Wars “When President Richard Nixon declared a War on Drugs in 1969, the U.S.-Mexico border became, for all practical purposes, the frontline of a never-ending war between the U.S government and the drug-smuggling cartels.” As violent crime continues to increase, we are unable to devote our financial resources and time into preventing and prosecuting those who commit important crimes such as murder, rape, and assault. The reason we are unable to contribute these resources where they are needed is because we are foolishly spending them on a battle that we cannot win, the "War on Drugs." Which was phrase first used by Richard Nixon in 1971, identifying drug abuse as “Public enemy number 1.” Most of the violent crime associated with drugs can be traced directly to the drug dealers and not the users. The War on Drugs drives up prices, which attracts more people to the drug trade. Drug dealers are forced to use violence when the threat of decreased profit occurs. These lead to territory wars in which one dealer attempts to protect his sales from another. These wars cause dealers to kill each other, law enforcement officials, and innocent bystanders. The rising cost of the drugs causes desperate addicts to commit robberies in order to keep up with the inflating prices. Drug dealing profits could be diminished or eliminated by a free market if the importation, sale and use of drugs were legal. Without the economic incentive to commit violent crimes, the violence of drug dealing would be dramatically reduced. In addition to the elimination of the economic incentive, the health risk factor would help to reduce the role of the drug dealer. A potential customer would probably choose to buy a market-tested product from a pharmacy as opposed to buying a product of unknown dosage and quality from a corner dealer. Without the lure of potential profits, the drug dealing profession would lose its shine. A major problem is that