Dont Legalize Drugs - Admission/Application Essay Example

In the majority of European countries, politicians, economists and public figures start to rethink the traditional policy regarding narcotics putting doubt on the widely accepted and entrenched fact that any non-medical use of drugs should be prohibited. Analysis of the effects of the “war on drugs” stimulates the creation of alternative approaches like decriminalization that presupposes allowance for free sale of some narcotics, legal distribution of prescription on drugs, medical marijuana and full legalization that gives freedom to the open trade and use of drugs. However, the debates regarding mentioned policies lead also to the review of so-called “unintended consequences” that include but are not limited with corruption of police and violent crime tendency (Thornton par. 1). The world-wide statistical data on the number of drug addicts clearly shows that there is no victory in the war on narcotics. Regrettably, any try to enforce restricted measures or impose limitations and prohibits only worsens the drug issue. Nevertheless, legalization of drugs differs from merely opening “drug” stores. This process raises a lot of questions. For instance, will be there a limitation on a purchase of drugs for a buyer? Would be there still a place for a black market? What characteristics should possess a person who is eligible for the sell of narcotics? What will be medical losses because of increased drug consumption? Would be people of all professions, including drivers, teachers, medical staff and pilots, allowed to use drugs? Such questions should not be disregarded since they outline how exactly the policy of drug legalization would be implemented. In addition, deciding whether legalization in a specific state would be effective or not, it is imperative to take into account the experience of other countries. Hence, the example of Great Britain in 1968 showed that the policy of letting doctors to prescribe drugs as a medical treatment led to the fact that narcotics were given not only to addicts, who later on distributed such so-called medicine to other people, but also to non-addicts, which flavored a significant growth in the rate of addiction (Rangel par. 3). In this respect, the process of drug legalization should be thought over carefully along with consideration of failures in other countries before making any experiments in a particular state. The problem of drug legalization can be viewed from philosophic point of view. A bright example is the article of Peter De Marneffe “Against the Legalization of Heroin”. Though making the sell and use of narcotics legal may improve the drinking problem of the society and reduce the number of people who prefer to relax and get rid of stress with the help of strong beverages, the author openly opposes the drug legalization policy explaining it with the fact that such experimental approach may cause unexpected effects on the future life of youngsters in poor communities (De Marneffe par. 3). The author focuses on this social layer because it is accepted as vulnerable one and most sensible to influences since its representatives feel the lack of proper knowledge, skills in professional sphere, financial security, strict plan of actions to own goals and respect to themselves. Indeed, such people are prone to have low self-esteem and self-confidence along with high dissatisfaction of limited life opportunities meanwhile drugs are able to make them forget about failures, do not notice any judgmental attitude of surrounding people, diminish own expectations about themselves and decrease motivation to achieve goals and commit responsibilities (De Marneffe par. 3). This argument is fair since poor communities will indeed be the first one who would negatively react on the legalization of drugs due to their insecure and unstable condition. The author also considers that general availability of drugs will lead to inadequate behavior of the parents with simultaneous inappropriate breeding of their children because youngsters will not have opportunities for a good education, development of job skills and others. This statement makes sense because children are great imitators of their parents, hence, seeing foul behavior of own mother and father, they can easily accept something ethically wrong and immoral as normal standard and pattern. Especially in the age of teenagers, it is quite common to complain about the complexity of life and stick to additional sources, such as cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, that help to ease tension, provide relaxation and pleasure. Therefore, it is forecasted that with the legalization of drugs, people will use them more often. The biggest threat is that in a moment of emotional breakdown, the use of drugs may force a person to make irrevocable actions. In this respect, it will affect the crime rate especially among the representatives of poor communities due to their narrow range of chances for success. De Marneffe is sure that there is a specific reason for the government to restrict people because the benefit of it is bigger than the advantage of the drug legalization as well as population has fair grounds to be limited in actions that outweigh positive effects of freedom (De Marneffe par. 6). Coercive policy of the government may violate people’s moral rights but it has a right to take place only in case such approach is more beneficial than its absence. The author claims that ineffectiveness of current government policy can be explained with disproportionate and gigantic penalties imposed on those people who purchase, use or sell narcotics meanwhile gradually increasing scale of punishment might cause positive effect on the tendency of drug addiction. In my opinion, soft system of fines will not bring to desired success since severe punishment is always more influential and people with a fear to be penalized will try to avoid illegal deeds. Taking into account that people addicted to heroine usually do not support legalization of drugs, De Marneffe explains it with the argument that “the reasons why some individuals want the manufacture, sale, and possession of heroin to be illegal do outweigh their reasons to want it to be legal” (De Marneffe par. 12). Therefore, people’s moral rights can not be considered as violated. I totally agree with the author in the statement that legalization would cause negative effect on the lifestyle of those people who use narcotics as a source of relaxation and who currently with an existence of laws are limited in their drug use by high prices, difficulty to purchase drugs and potential jurisdictional punishment for it. As an alternative to the drug legalization, the author offers effective neighborhood policing. In my opinion, the most crucial argument that opposes the legalization of drugs should be the fact that scientifically it has been already proved that the use of narcotics causes negative effect on the long-term motivation and short-term memory. The prolonged use of all drugs causes addiction that may lead to the moral degradation of personality and an increase of the crime rate. In this respect, before considering practical legalization of drugs, economists should proceed with their study on possible consequences of such policy and recommend alternative reforms in order to control and encourage improvement of the existed social problem. Works Cited De Marneffe, Peter. “Against the Legalization of Heroin.” Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1 (2003): 34. Print. Rangel, Charles. “Why Drug Legalization Should Be Opposed.” Criminal Justice Ethics 17.2 (1998): 2. Print. Thornton, Mark. “Prohibition versus Legalization: Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy?” Independent Review 11.3 (2007): 417. Print. Read More