Mike Stewart

Keeping Drugs Illegal

As with most topics of debate, the issue of whether to legalize drugs or not often takes

its turn at center stage. Would legalizing drugs increase the number of addicts? Would

taking away street dealers decrease the number of users? Does the current drug policy

working for America? While proponents of the legalization of drugs may contend that

specific issues, such as the possibility of decreased levels of crime, or the reduction in

costs associated with policing and regulating the drug epidemic argue that the drug war is

a losing battle, there are many more opponents that contend that use of drugs, leads to the

destruction of human character. (663) William J. Bennett, “Drug Policy and the

Intellectuals”, believes that drugs should remain illegal, and backs up his statement with

(American examples/past issues). James Q. Wilson, the chairman of the National

Advisory Council for Drug Abuse Prevention in 1972, also believes in keeping the policy

as is. In his essay “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, Wilson (backs up) his opinion

with examples of drug policies gone wrong in Britain.

The most addressed question raised with the issue of legalizing drugs is this: Would

legalizing drugs increase the number of addicts and crime associated with drugs? Both of

the writers and their commentary lead to the point that it would. Bennett claims “that if

were easier to obtain, drug use would soar” (662). He uses the change in availability of

crack as an example. In his essay, Bennett explained how difficult it was to obtain crack

when there was a shortage, but once it became readily accessible, its use greatly
increased, especially with the poor (662). Bennett also compares legalized drugs to

alcohol prohibition. During the prohibition, Bennett describes that that there was less

alcohol consumption, less fighting, and less alcohol related health problems. “And

contrary to myth,” he states,” there is no evidence that Prohibition caused big increases in

crime” (663).

James Wilson uses Britain’s failed policy to support his opinion. He told the story of

when Britain tried to use clinics for their heroin addicted “patients”. The patients would

argue with the doctors to get larger doses, and, according to Wilson, “would use some of

their ‘maintenance’ dose and sell the remaining part to friends, thereby recruiting new

addicts” (670). The number of addicts in Britain is far less than that of America. If this

country attempted to use clinics or physicians, Wilson suggests that “we could have far

worse results (…) for no other reason than the vastly larger number of addicts with which

we began” (670). If we are having trouble controlling drug use now, how will our police

be able to handle such a large increase? Still, there are those who will advocate the

legalization of drugs because they believe that the U.S. Anti Drug effort is an expensive

bust. In 1999, Gary Johnson, the governor of the state of New Mexico called for the

legalization of everything from marijuana to heroin. "Control it, regulate it, tax it,"

Johnson said of recreational drugs. "If you legalize it we might actually have a healthier

society." (CNN.com)

Taking money away from the drug dealers is another argument for the legalization of

drugs. William Bennett speculates that many people who enter into the drug business
believe that they will earn a large profit for themselves. In reality, this just isn’t true.

Many of the dealers make little money, eventually start doing the drugs themselves, and

resort to crime or prostitution to increase their income. “Dealing drugs”, declares

Bennett, “invariably leads to murder and prison” (661). By keeping drugs illegal, we are

hopefully hindering people from trying or selling them. Bennett also points out the fact

that “research indicates that most drug criminals were into crime well before they got into

drugs” (661). James Wilson also believes that pushers may not be affected by

legalization. He notices that even when Britain’s policy of having doctors administer the

drugs, “a youthful drug culture emerged with a demand for drugs far different from that

of the older addicts” (669). America is seeing this today. Our younger generations seem

to have newer drugs that we did 15 years ago. “Pushers do not produce addicts”, writes

Wilson, “friends or acquaintances do” (669).

While both authors agree on majority of the drug issues, there is a major point where

they disagree. Wilson insists that by keeping drugs illegal in 1972, “we did not lose. We

did not win, either (…) the problem was contained and the number of victims minimized,

all at a considerable cost in law enforcement and increased crimes. Was the cost worth

it? I think so” (673). Although our drug policies could always be better, Wilson feels

that our nation is not at the beginning of a drug induced plague. In contrast, Bennett

believes “what is brutish, corrupt, and sinister is the murder and mayhem being

committed in our cities’ streets” and that “the current situation won’t do” (665).

Works Cited

Barnet, Sylvan, and Bedau, Hugo, Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 8th Edition.
Boston:2008.
CNN.com. 06 Oct.1999http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/06/legalizing.drugs.01/