Drugs and Crime1 Essay Example

to avoid legal repercussions.

In the modern era, we still follow laws that were established centuries ago, even though they may seem outdated. This raises the question of why we continue to invest significant resources in complying with old laws that were enacted before cars were invented. To begin our examination, let us explore the origins of our ineffective drug control regulations and examine how drugs relate to criminal activity. Drugs have been present in our society throughout history, serving both personal and medical purposes.

Throughout history, marijuana has been utilized for centuries, as evidenced by records dating back to the establishment of Jamestown (1). Notably, even one of the founding fathers, George Washington, grew and consumed it to alleviate toothache pain. In a similar fashion, opium was readily purchasable just like Tylenol is today. These substances were stocked in pharmacies and grocery stores, ensuring easy accessibility for all.

In the past, drug use and trade were seen as acceptable even though people were unaware of the addictive qualities. Nevertheless, in the early 1900s, the Progressive movement sought to control drugs (1). Numerous factors influenced this shift in public perception. Firstly, when the US acquired the Philippine Islands, they obtained a legal supply of opium specifically for addicted individuals.

In the early 1900s, there were worries about the impact of drugs on people. The government manipulated journalists to disseminate false narratives about drug-addicted individuals engaging in heinous acts like rape and murder. Furthermore, drugs became linked to black and Chinese immigrant communities, instilling fear in white communities (1). To tackle these concerns, President Roosevelt designated three individuals: Reverend Charles Brent, an Episcopal bishop, and Dr.

Hamilton Wright and Charles Tenney,

a China missionary, were chosen by America to be representatives at The Hague International Opium Convention of 1912. This conference marked the start of the modern movement against narcotics trafficking, with the US becoming involved through its activities in the Philippines (2). While regulations existed overseas, the United States had no legislation in place to protect against narcotics trafficking. In 1913, Francis Harrison, a New York Representative, introduced two bills in Congress. One aimed to prohibit the use and importation of opium, while the other sought to regulate the manufacturing of smoking opium within the US. Although it was recognized as a revenue bill, its purpose was not to generate revenue.

President Wilson signed the bills and they became effective on March 1, 1914. The Harrison Act stated that those who broke the law could face a maximum punishment of either a five-year prison sentence, a $2,000.00 fine, or both. However, many people believed that an average sentence of one-and-a-half years was not severe enough. It is important to mention that the Harrison Act did not prohibit the use of narcotics; it solely regulated their distribution. Individuals involved in producing or distributing narcotics had to acquire licenses and pay a graduated occupational tax.

Doctors were no longer permitted to provide drugs to addicts, sparking a debate about whether drugs constituted an addiction or a crime, and how addicts should be regarded, as sick individuals or simply as addicts (2). Ultimately, the implementation of the Harrison Act led to an escalation in drug use rather than its prevention. To address this issue, a committee was established to investigate the matter, revealing a significant surge in illicit narcotics usage

during the act's enforcement. Rather than amending the act for improvement, penalties were only made stricter. In 1918, the Volstead Act was enacted despite President Wilson's veto.

During the 1920s, legislation was introduced to enforce prohibition and establish a dedicated Narcotics Division within the Prohibition Bureau. This division aimed to address concerns linked to the Harrison Act, with strict guidelines for hiring narcotic officers set by the Civil Service (1). Throughout this period, numerous studies and investigations were conducted to explore drug addiction and its relationship with crime.

According to Dr. Lawerence Kolb, his research showed that addicts and non-addicts have different reactions to the same drug. He argued that taking too much opium would not cause criminal tendencies but actually suppress them. This finding aimed to challenge the idea that drugs are connected to criminal behavior. However, despite this research, the Harrison Act was reinstated and by the end of 1921, 44 maintenance clinics were shut down. Consequently, addicts were no longer able to legally acquire drugs or receive outpatient treatment.

Previously, addiction was not considered a criminal offense, meaning it was not legal to arrest and incarcerate every addict. At present, prison space was already scarce and overcrowded, with prisons holding twice their intended capacity. In 1922, proponents of the Harrison Act felt a sense of relief when the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act (1) was approved by Congress. This legislation granted the Surgeon General authority to control the entry of raw opium and coca leaves, limiting their use solely to medicinal and scientific purposes.

The creation of the Federal Bureau Board aimed to enforce penalties and fines for illegal importation. However, critics claimed that this

new measure did not effectively curb unlawful importation, but rather contributed to the rise in prices within the illegal drug market. In 1929, the Porter bill was approved, and its purpose was to build two prison hospitals to provide treatment for addicts. These hospitals accommodated a capacity of one thousand addicts, who were either referred by the court or voluntarily sought treatment.

In order to enhance its effectiveness, the next logical progression was to establish a distinct Bureau of Narcotics, independent from the Prohibition Bureau. This move came to fruition in 1930 when the bill was successfully passed and President Hoover's signature solidified the establishment of what we now recognize as the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Taking the helm as commissioner was Harry Anslinger, tasked with enforcing the Harrison Act using the authorities granted by the Jones-Miller Act. The primary challenge in enforcement lay in detecting and averting the unlawful trafficking of narcotics.

Throughout his time in office, Anslinger utilized the media to his advantage by disseminating fabricated crimes associated with drug usage, a tactic that would yield him political advantages. Despite acknowledging that marijuana was not addictive, he deliberately equated it to heroin, describing it as being just as dreadful. The Harrison Act had faced scrutiny on five occasions since its enactment, and its overall ineffectiveness was reported by the St.

According to the Louis Post, a new legislation was proposed in 1937 to impose a transfer and occupational excise tax on dealers. President Roosevelt signed the bill in August of the same year, resulting in the prohibition of marijuana starting from October 1, 1937 (1). Registered users were required to pay a one dollar transfer tax,

while those not registered faced a one hundred dollar tax.

The government did not have any illegal dealers registered, and violations could result in a fine of $2,000.00, imprisonment for 5 years, or both (1). The disruptions caused by World War II led to a scarcity of drugs for addicts (1). In 1942, Anslinger believed that Japan had used narcotics as weapons to initiate the war on Western civilization a decade earlier (1).

At first, he ignored the political advantages but later acknowledged the importance of identifying worldwide distribution sites. In October 1938, the New York Academy of Medicine established a committee to extensively study the consequences of marijuana in the city. The resulting report revealed that marijuana had no abnormal or illegal effects on people and was not linked to criminal activity or juvenile delinquency. As a result, this prompted the implementation of the Boggs Act, which imposed stricter penalties for drug law violations.

The Boggs Act was enacted to establish a minimum prison term of two years for first-time offenders. Second-time offenders would face a more severe sentence of five to ten years, with no chance for probation. Third-time offenders would receive the harshest penalty - a mandatory twenty-year sentence without any possibility of probation. Critics argued that this law primarily focused on addicts and traffickers instead of dealers and distributors. They also claimed that these strict prison terms would not effectively discourage importation due to the potential profits outweighing any deterrent effect.

Despite facing opposition, the Boggs Act was eventually approved and signed into effect on November 2, 1951 by President Truman. However, instead of witnessing a decline in illicit drug use as expected, Anslinger advocated

for even harsher penalties.
Rather than approving a new bill, the American Bar Association established a committee to investigate the Harrison Act, marking the first nationwide inquiry into illicit drugs.
The result of this investigation was the Narcotic Control Act, which became the harshest antidrug legislation implemented. The NCA not only doubled the lengthy sentences imposed by the Boggs Act but also introduced the death penalty for certain cases. Yet these laws failed to eradicate the drug epidemic.

As a result of the increased penalties for heroin, marijuana now faces harsher punishments as well due to most states mandating equal consequences for both substances. The popularity of marijuana, especially among college students, grew during the sixties. To combat this growing usage, the federal government initiated Operation Intercept aimed at cracking down on the influx of Mexican marijuana. This operation involved more extensive vehicle inspections and over 1800 strip searches within its first week alone. Furthermore, Anslinger stepped down as head of the FBN in 1963 after serving for a long time, and the Presidential Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse reformed mandatory minimum sentences to be stricter. They also established the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC) to address the increasing drug use among young individuals.

The FBN and the BDAC merged in 1968 to form the BNDD. During President Nixon's time in office, he implemented a drug war and established the ODALE and the ONNI. In 1973, Reorganization Plan No. 2 transformed the BNDD into the DEA. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 introduced five schedules to classify drugs based on their effects and prescription availability(1). The Omnibus Drug Enforcement, Education, and Control Act

of 1986 aimed to increase penalties for drug dealers, enhance customs and border patrols, prohibit synthetic drugs, and improve treatment and prevention programs.

Despite the failure in implementing drug control policies, all have led to a rise in drug use (2). To address this issue, it is crucial to take suitable measures, either by legalizing or legislating. The construction of additional prisons indicates a preference for imprisoning drug offenders over offering support. As American citizens, we carry the responsibility of standing with our fellow Americans regardless of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background.

Many people believe that our drug laws are too strict and instead of imprisoning those who commit drug offenses, they should receive treatment. Currently, 1.7 million Americans are serving time for drug offenses, making up 80% of the prison population. This high number of drug offenders is a major cause of overcrowding in prisons. Since 1965, an astonishing ten million individuals have been arrested solely for marijuana-related crimes, without considering violations involving other illegal drugs. Furthermore, a significant portion of these incarcerated individuals are non-violent drug offenders who often receive longer sentences than those convicted of violent crimes.

This doesn't sound right, does it? Almost 50% of our police resources are focused on stopping drug trafficking rather than preventing violent crimes (The Libertarian Party). Previous efforts to regulate drug use have proven unsuccessful over time, and new attempts will yield similar results. We are using our own hard-earned money to financially support prisoners. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the number of individuals convicted for drug offenses rose from 3,384 in 1970 to 55,624 in 1998 due to the government's adoption of stricter penalties.

Despite

a decrease in overall crime reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, data shows an increase in drug arrests. This raises concerns about the divergent trends between crime and drugs, two closely linked issues. The financial burden on states for the criminal justice system is higher than that of the federal government. As taxpayers, we are spending significant amounts each year to support incarcerated individuals. Many of those imprisoned for drug offenses are low-income individuals who turned to drug selling to provide for their families. The question arises whether it is appropriate to impose harsh penalties for non-violent crimes and if it is fair for us to bear the costly burden of housing these individuals. For instance, imprisoning an addict or occasional drug user caught with a small quantity carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, resulting in a public prison cost of $110,000.00.

At the same cost, we could provide the offender with one year of imprisonment, one year of residential drug treatment, and three years of supervised probation and outpatient drug treatment, while still having a remaining amount of $62,500.00. The country's expenditure on crime control amounts to approximately 100 billion dollars per year. It would be more beneficial to allocate these funds towards areas such as education and poverty reduction. Despite crime rates decreasing since the seventies, our prison population has tripled since 1980.

In reality, prison fails to discourage criminals from reoffending upon release. Alternative programs that offer drug addicts the necessary treatment to reform would be more effective. Prisons do not resolve our drug issues; instead, they contribute to them. Upon release, individuals are stigmatized as ex-convicts, which is a major

factor leading to their return to jail.

Legislation has shown to contribute to drug use and crime, rather than achieving its intended goal of drug control. It is necessary to end drug prohibition, as its effectiveness has already been proven with alcohol. The issue of overcrowded prisons remains unresolved, and it raises the question of whether we are engaged in a futile struggle. Currently, do you consume drugs? If drugs were legalized, would you partake in their use? Would drug usage escalate if it were legal? These are some of the inquiries that plague our society in relation to legalization. Moreover, why should other drugs be permitted despite causing more fatalities than all illegal substances combined? Tobacco claims 390,000 lives, alcohol takes 80,000 lives, whereas cocaine and heroin account for only about 4,500 deaths.

Marijuana has never been responsible for any deaths in the US, as stated by The Drug Project. Currently, America is facing a drug epidemic, with an increase in drug-related homicides and violent attacks. However, these issues are not directly caused by drugs but rather by the laws that forbid their use. The prohibition of drugs leads to escalating drug prices, forcing addicts to engage in criminal activities to sustain their addiction. It should be noted that the illegal drug trade is the second largest global industry, generating an annual revenue of over 500 billion dollars.

Opponents of legalization argue that the reason tobacco and alcohol cause more deaths is due to their legal status and easy accessibility(3). They believe that education and early prevention are the key solutions. The use of drugs among American children is increasing, and educating them is an effective means

of reducing their use. It is important to teach children about the effects and risks of drugs from a young age.

If something is not done, children will become future drug abusers. Many people believe that violence and drugs are inseparable, but is this statement accurate? Drugs do not transform individuals into monsters; rather, they highlight their inclination towards criminal behavior. While it is widely accepted that legalization would eliminate drug-related violence, it would specifically put an end to the violence linked to the black market.

Many individuals choose to become dealers because of the financial gain involved in drug trade. However, if drugs were to be legally authorized, the potential for profit would cease to exist. The War on Drugs is currently a controversial matter in our society, and unfortunately, it is not achieving its intended goals. Despite this, we should not dismiss the effectiveness of this program(5). It is important to remember that we are not solely combatting drugs themselves but also the impact of drug use on society. If drugs were made legal, it remains uncertain how our society would be affected and whether it would lead to any improvements. To truly determine the outcome, legalization should be given serious consideration.

In my opinion, legalizing drugs would resolve more issues than it would generate. Drugs have been present in our society for centuries, serving medicinal and recreational purposes. Additionally, legalization would alleviate overcrowding in prisons, reducing housing expenses for taxpayers annually. A study conducted by the National Institutes of Mental Health indicates potential annual savings of $37 billion, enabling funds to be allocated towards addressing poverty and other pressing matters. Prior to government intervention

in drug regulation, drug use was not a contentious matter.

Despite the medicinal uses of many illegal drugs, the perceived problem surrounding them remains. The excessively strict drug control laws affect not only users but also the general population. It is necessary to reassess the prohibition on dangerous drugs, although full legalization of all drugs is not advocated.

The control of the most harmful aspects to our health should be implemented to some extent, as we should not abandon our society, but instead strive to enhance our way of life for ourselves and future generations.

References

1. Incardi, James (1990) Handbook of Drug Control in the United States Coneticut:Greenwood Press 2.

Vallance, Theodore (1993) Prohibition’s Second Failure Coneticut:Praeger Publishers

Benjamin, Daniel K & Miller, Roger (1991) Undoing Drugs: Beyond Legalization Harper Collins Publishers

Chiki, Andrea M. (1996) A Study Of The Legislation Of Hallucinogens

Marshall, Jonathan (1991) Drug Wars California: Cohan & Cohen Publishers