" Legalization Is Not A Crue -All "

In 1989 then, President George Bush, implemented a four-strategy to fight illegal drugs. The first part of this program increased the Justice Department budget to build more prisons, hire more law enforcement agents, and appoint additional prosecutors. A second part of the President's, plan provided more money for the countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, to help them fight the drug plague and to substitute legal crops, such as bananas, flowers, and coffee for the illegal coca fields used to make cocaine. The program contemplated an investment of $2.2 billion during five years for the region, including U.S. training of local police forces. The third part of the strategy allocated more money for drug-treatment programs. It also, provided funds for research about the causes and treatment of addictive disorders, and special program for pregnant women and addictive prisoners. The last part of the plan created drug-education programs to teach children, to help addicts to quit their habits, and to prevent users of mild drugs from trying stronger and more addictive ones. But, regardless of this government effort, raised since 1914, and increased more by the current administration. American cities are still being devastated by the ravages of the illegal drug trade. Convinced by these frustrating experiences, assistant professor of politics and public affairs, Ethan A. Nadelmann, advocates legalization because, current policies have failed, the government effort is too expensive, and legal drugs would be unappealing. Reaching opposite conclusion, political scientist James Q. Wilson, claims that, by legalizing drugs users would increase, violence would grow, the moral sense would abate. I believe no amount of government force to curb drug use, would discourage consumers and producers from engaging in illicit billion dollar business, without caring for consequences, unless the international community decriminalize the illicit drug use.

Professor Nadelmann, believes legalization is the solution to the drug trafficking problem. He contends that current government policies have failed in its effort to eradicate or reduce illicit drugs; that, the strategies to destroy the drug plague are expensive and counter-productive; and drug consumption is unlikely to increase in the event of legalization. The government plan to reduce the quality and amount of drugs in the black market have been unsuccessful. The one hundred dollar per gram of cocaine has been the same since the beginning of the 1980's and 1990's. Even worst, a new cheaper extremely addictive drug, "CRACK" cocaine has flooded the street, gaining wide acceptance in the drug culture. In the year 2000 the new drug, "ICE" has made its way from the west coast, to flood the America street. All the massive efforts of police force only enjoy a temporary success, as the hard-to-reach criminals replace the hundreds of apprehended minor dealers with new paddler's in new communities. It is not only the failure of the government policies which demand legalization, but, also the overall cost of the unfruitful fighting, the government is spending ten times more than the one billion dollars invested in 1988. More disturbing, however, has been the amount of judges, agents, prosecutors, and prison space devoted to this war, leaving unattended other important areas of the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, only a low percentage of the drug-control budget is assigned to drug-treatment programs, forgetting the thousands of addicts who have to deal alone with their habits. It may sound paradoxical, but, the great social problems caused by illicit drugs may be resolved by making them legal. First, if the drugs were legalized, millions of drug trafficking offenses would cease, and hundreds of law enforcement officers would be less prone to corruption. Second, the number of crimes committed by drug users would be reduced due to the cheap price that, comes with legalization, and enforcement could be focused on more dangerous and violence crimes. Third, if drugs were sold in government designated stores , the violence bred by gangs and criminal organizations fighting for the drug trade would have no more reason to exist. Finally, the widespread fear that legalization would increase the number of users is unfounded. The reason is that the effects of illicit drugs are too strong and consciousness-altering to be used as frequently and casually as alcohol and tobacco during social intercourse. Moreover, the government can limit the lure of cheap, legalized drugs by imposing taxes, banning advertising, designating the time and place of consumption and holding responsible those driving under the influence of drugs. Adopting the opposite side of the issue, Wilson, believes that legalization would make the percentage of drug users higher, would destroy our humanity, and would flood the street with violence and disease the American cities. The purpose of the drug enforcement agencies is to deter users through fear of punishment, and to contain drug trafficking to make the street value of drugs expensive and consequently less affordable. Though, it is argued that these efforts generate more violence by compelling addicts to commit more crimes to buy their desired drugs, nobody really knows how much crime would decline in the face of legalization. It is known, however, that if drugs were legalized, the government would spend much more in welfare programs for the prospective millions of addicts than it does through the current policies of prohibition. There is not need to speculate on the results of the government tactics, however, because statistics gather back in the 1970's, when the government declared "war" against heroin, show the required evidence. Back then the government efforts on prevented young persons from entering the heroin subculture, which is the reason why the almost half million heroin subculture, which is the reason why the almost half million heroin addicts remained steady since 1970 to 1990. Some studies even shows the rate of young black users had declined. The reason, according to those surveyed, was the risk of apprehension, the high value of drugs, and the fear of dying from overdose or of suffering serious illness as hepatitis. These consequences of prohibition helped to keep heroin use at a low rate. Legalization would have lowered prices and increased the availability of the drug, rising the number of users to unmanageable levels. This was precisely the experience of Great Britain, back in the 1960's when doctors prescribing legal doses of heroin started giving out wholesale amounts to patients. Even after the British, government took control of the heroin distribution, the number of addicts skyrocketed in the decade because the prescribed heroin became a supply of the street market. Heroin was contained by prohibition, and the same approach can be applied to cocaine and its potent derivative, crack. Indeed, crack, requires special attention because its effects are far devastating than heroin. Heroin produces a drowsiness that soothes the aggressiveness in the addict. But, crack, and injecting cocaine, gives a high, intense, short-lived euphoria which can produce quick mood changes. Moreover, regular crack users abuse their children and spouses, affects work production and seriously affect competence. Crack, in other words, destroy all the human attitudes necessary for social living. Regardless of the harms caused by crack-cocaine, legalization advocates still claims that, under their regimen the wide availability of treatment programs would lessen the habit. advocates of legalization as Nedelmann, contends that to reflect cocaine and allow tobacco is a mere prejudice. He failed to see, however, that tobacco does not alter the consciousness of the user. Neither is he right in claiming that because the heath and financial costs of alcohol are higher than illicit drugs, it is absurd to allow the former and ban the latter. He overlooked the fact that alcohol is widely used precisely because it is legal. I adopt the whole argument expounded by Nadelmann, because, it implicitly depicts the situation of North America consumers and Latin America producers that no government can change unless drugs became legalized. In spite of all the billions and billions of dollars the U.S. government has allocated to combat the illicit drug trade, the American cities are flooded with tons upon tons, of cocaine, heroin and marijuana coming from Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia each years. The drug cartels have aimed their awesome power toward their government and the elite, corrupting with money and fear every level of the Colombian democratic institutions. Many of those few government officials who have stood by their office with dignity and honor have paid with their lives and lives of their family, the most minimal denial to the "capo's" request. Hundreds of police officers, civilians and children, dozens of judges, prosecutors, congressman, and officials, and even the presidential candidates have been killed during years and years of terrorism and violence paid for by the drug lords. The country has bled with impunity, unable to fight back the tremendous power of the criminal drug organization. Their power has been estimated by Time Magazine, who has reported that just the Cali, cartel alone receive annual profits of $7,000 million dollars from trafficking since the 1980's. This amount compared to the nation's 1990 gross national product of $45,000 million makes futile any effort to win in the Colombian front, leaving as alternative the legalization of drugs to destroy the profit incentives of the big criminal. Finally, the United States, with is over 9 trillion dollars in debt, can not combat the cartel. But, spend billions of dollars against millions of American users who create a market with unsuitable demands for drugs. Again, although Americans enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world, and regardless, of anti-drug campaigns, education, and draconian sentencing laws; drugs continue poisoning every sector of society, suggesting that the causes of drug use are others besides poverty, illiteracy, or unemployment. Some theologians talk about the loss of faith, psychologists about anxiety and sociologists about family's disintegration. But, whatever the inner reveals responsible for the modern man's behavior, it is a fact that millions of Americans consume illicit drug on a regular basis. Changing current drug policies in favor of legalization does not amount to waiving the "white flag of surrender" as Wilson, arrogantly claims. Drug legalization means a change in strategy, one that aims at curtailing drug use with persuasion, without the expensive and counterproductive use of repression.