Essay/Term paper: Should the united states end drug prohibition?

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Alcohol and Drugs

The Federal Government, while trying to protect us from our human nature,
developed harsh anti-drug policies with the hope of eradicating drugs. At
the time, these policies seemed simple enough: we will impose penalties on
those who use substances illegally, we will intercept drugs coming from
other countries while ending all drug cultivation in the States, and we will
even try to prevent foreign governments from growing these substances. The
idea of the Drug Prohibition surely made sense: lower demand of drugs by law
enforcement, and reduce supply through domestic and international means.
Unfortunately, the Drug Prohibition led to heavy costs, both financially and
otherwise, while being ineffective, if not, at times, counterproductive.
Today, we can see the unforeseen costs of the "Drug Prohibition," and we
should consider these costs before expanding the "War on Drugs."
First, among the costs of the "War on Drugs," the most obvious is monetary
cost. The direct cost of purchasing drugs for private use is $100 billion a
year. The federal government spends at least $10 billion a year on drug
enforcement programs and spends many billions more on drug-related crimes
and punishment. The estimated cost to the United States for the "War on
Drugs" is $200 billion a year or an outstanding $770 per person per year,
and that figure does not include the money spent by state and local
government in this "war" (Evans and Berent, eds. xvii).
The second cost of this "war" is something economist like to call
opportunity costs. Here, we have two resources which are limited: prison
cells and law enforcement. When more drug crimes take up law enforcement's
time and when more drug criminals take up cells, less ability to fight other
crime exists. This becomes significant when an estimated 35-40 million
Americans use drugs per year. In 1994, law enforcement arrested some
750,000 people on drug charges, and of those 750,000, 600,000 were charged
merely with possession. Sixty percent of the prison population are drug
offenders (Wink). The police, therefore, most work to find these 35 million
"criminals," thereby exhausting their resources. Also, in major urban
centers, the number of drug offences brought to trial are outstanding. For
example, in Washington in 1994, 52% of all indictments were drug related as
opposed to 13% in 1981 (Evans and Berent, eds. 21). All aspects of our
legal system are being exhausted on drugs when it could be used more
effectively on other felonies or focused on preventing children from buying
drugs.
Another two legal aspects of Drug Prohibition are interesting since they
show how the "Prohibition" is not only ineffective, but also
counterproductive. The first of which is the fact that the illegality of
drugs leads to huge profits for drug dealers and traffickers. Ironically,
the Drug Prohibition benefits most the drug traffickers and dealers as
prices are pushed well above cost (Evans and Berent, eds. 22). The second
aspect of the "Drug Prohibition" that undermines law enforcement is the need
for drug users to commit personal property crimes. One-third of the people
arrested for burglary and robbery said that they stole only to support their
habit, and about 75% of personal property crimes were committed by drug
abusers. Studies also suggest that these people, when placed on outpatient
drug therapy or sold drugs at a lower price commit much less crime (Duke).
Even the DEA admits that, "Drug use was common among inmates serving time
for robbery, burglary, and drug offenses" ("Crime, Violence").
Drug Prohibition has been very costly, detrimental to our relations with
other countries, and harmful to users and society alike. All this while
trying to battle an enemy who is not as dangerous as it is currently
believed by most of the American public. The unpleasantries of the history
of Drug Prohibition also show us how the public has been mislead through
Prohibition. Many of these disagreeable acts were not circumstances of Drug
Prohibition, rather goals of it, whether it was understood or not.
The United States' image in Latin America has been precarious nearly from
its birth. The image of the American intent on dominating the New World
plays in the minds of our neighbors. Recently, though, the situation is
interesting since the countries involved are growing less and less
complacent to deal with the losses of sovereignty that they are incurring.
Drug Prohibition not only plays out on the American stage, but is a focal
point of US relations with the countries of Latin America. So, as each of
these countries has to pay the costs of Yankee Imperialism, the tension
between neighbors is increasing.
The first of the tensions comes from Colombia. Unfortunately, our crusade
against drugs has caused the famous cartels of South America and,
especially, those of Colombia. Many wonder if we are justified in putting
pressure on these countries just to slow the drug trade. The deaths of
thousands of innocent Colombians were the result of our actions in these
countries (Evans and Berent, eds. 58). The growth of the cartels,
especially the Cali cartel, has led to political corruption in that country.
"The President [Ernesto Samper] was said to have taken money from drug
traffickers so that the government would stop other groups from exporting
cocaine. He promised in his campaign a fight against drugs, but nobody can
trust a President who took money from the cartels," said David Casas, a
resident of Cali, Colombia. This unnecessary death and corruption in other
countries due to United States' drug policy sometimes lead to hostility
toward us (Casas). Because of the problems South American countries have
faced because of Drug Prohibition, Colombia's Nobel Prize winning author
Gabriel García Márquez has written a manifesto declaring the drug war as
"useless" (15).
Action abroad by the United States has also led to an increase in
subversive organizations worldwide. Civil war is currently being threatened
in Bolivia by a coca-growing union. The group, which feels that the
Bolivian government has been too open to challenges in sovereignty, is
fighting "Yankee Imperialism" and control by the DEA of a coca-growing
region (Epstein 1). In Colombia and Peru, groups like the communist Fuerzas
Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia)
and Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), both Communist groups, that survive on
drug money lead such acts as kidnaping foreign visitors, leading bombings on
American buisnesses in the country, and attempting to destroy institutions
of governments friendly to the United States (Spiegel 480). This subversion
of government can even reach our beauracracy as the CIA is rumored to have
allowed the Nicaraguan Contras to sell drugs in the US to fund their
revolution against the Sandinistas ("CIA" 20).
Therefore, in South America, our persistence on Drug Prohibition has not
only been unable to prevent the further imports of drugs, but also could
lead to the installation of Communist regimes in the area. Since the other
costs of Drug Prohibition has its base domestically, the conversation will
turn to rights and liberties which help to explain why the drug war is not
American and why it might not be effective. This requires a discussion on
the role of government.
The ultimate end of government is to protect our rights. We've entered a
social contract with our governments: that we will give our obedience and
taxes in return for protection of our rights. The United Nations classifies
these rights in three "generations": civil, socioeconomic, and solidarity
rights (Peterson). Shielding our people from the dangers of a threatening
world, therefore, seems to be an appropriate use of the state's power under
socioeconomic rights. The danger in thinking in this manner is that it
overlooks the individual's contributions to the nation. These
contributions, either positive or negative, are generally difficult to
regulate by broad legislation. In fact, at times, legislation can be
counterproductive, trying zealously to protect one right by violating many
others.
We saw in the former U.S.S.R. what can happen when government begins to
enforce positive liberty. Positive liberty is different from what we
usually think of as liberty, which is negative liberty. A negative liberty
is one like the First Amendment which keeps the government from doing
something, namely limiting your rights to speech and religion. A positive
liberty is one which forces the government to provide some service to its
citizens. An example of a positive liberty is the government's
responsibility to protect our inalienable rights. The danger with expanding
positive liberties is that it gives government a more active role in
people's rights. For that reason most would believe that government should
not give itself too many positive liberties as did the Soviet Union
(Peterson). Drug Prohibition is an example of a positive liberty because it
gives the government the go ahead to do what it must to give us a drug-free
America. However, we should ask the question: is it worth keeping Drug
Prohibition as a positive liberty when it infringes upon both our negative
and positive liberties, not the least of which are life and liberty? U. S.
District Judge William W. Schwarzer helped explain this when he said ending
drug use is useless "if in the process we lose our soul" (Trebach and
Inciardi 29). Today he might say "since" instead of "if" since the
injustice and the cost on society of Prohibition is already well ingrained
into our society.
There could be two possible explanations for Drug Prohibition: we must
protect people from harming themselves, or we want people to avoid drugs
because extensive drug use harms society. Proponents of Drug Prohibition
think one or both of these reasons is adequate for continuing Prohibition.
The first is based on the people's right to life, and the second is based on
the right for pursuit of happiness. However, there are fallacies in both
statements, as will be shown.
Before we can admit that our reasoning for Drug Prohibition is wrong, we
must find a better alternative. The solution proposed in this essay is one
of establishing free markets both internationally and domestically. The
proponents of drug decriminalization have basic assumptions about what would
result from a free market. For now, we will focus on what proponents of
drug legalization think the implications of a free drug market would be for
the individual users. These assumptions are that illegal drugs are not as
dangerous as currently legal drugs and that the decriminalization of drugs
will not greatly increase the number of drug addicts.
First, most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as believed, and those that
are truly dangerous will be avoided. This is essential to the argument for
decriminalization since we do not wish to have a large number of people die
from a policy. However, if we compare the number of people who die annually
from "appropriate" drugs to that of the number of people who die annually
from illicit drugs, we would be inconsistent to think of the illicit drugs
as dangerous. For example, 60 million Americans have tried marijuana and not
one of these 60 million have died of an overdose. If this is compared to
the 10,000 people who die annually from overdosing on alcohol, one can
assume that marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol. Also, many drugs
have minor side-effects when compared to acceptable drugs. One example,
heroin, is highly addictive, but when used in a clean environment with clean
needles, its worst side effect is constipation (Evans and Berent, eds. 24).
Overall, while 35 million people use drugs each year in the United States,
only 6,000 to 30,000 ever die of drug use; therefore, there is little reason
to consider illicit drugs as a great danger to the individual, considering
our opinions of alcohol and tobacco (Wink).

Deaths Caused by Use of Alcohol, Illegal Drugs, and Tobacco
Drug Number of Users (per year) Number of Deaths Caused by Drug (per
year)deaths per 100,000 users
Alcohol 106 million 150 thousand 142
Nicotine 57 million 400 thousand 702
Illicit Drugs 35 million1 18 thousand 51

Data on number of users and number of deaths are from Walter Wink's
Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Option except 1 which comes from
Evans and Berent, eds. Drug Legalization: For and Against p.21. Deaths per
100,000 users is derived from the number of deaths divided by number of
users multiplied by 100,000.

Another assumption of drug decriminalization is that there will not be a
large increase in the number of people who abuse drugs. If many people were
likely to become addicts, there would be good reason not to go through with
drug decriminalization. While both decriminalizationists and
prohibitionists agree that the legalization of drugs will lead to more
people using drugs, decriminalizationists believe that there would not be a
large increase in drug abuse. This belief stems from a study of the
difference between the drug use and abuse between poor urbans and well-offs.
The study states that the percentage of poor urbans using drugs is much
higher than the percentage of well-offs who used drugs. To believe that
increased use leads to increase abuse, the percentage of poor, urban addicts
should be higher than the percentage of well-off addicts. The result,
however, was contrary to this belief, since the percentages of addicts in
both groups was almost equal. What this implies is that an increase in
users does not translate to an increase in addicts (Evans and Berent, eds. 239).
Thomas J. Gorman, Deputy Chief of the California Attorney General's Bureau
of Narcotic Enforcement, in his report "The Myths of Drug Legalization" uses
outlandish statistics from "experts" to scare the reader into believing that
legalization "could lead to the downfall of the United States as we know
it." He uses Dr. H. Kelbrs assertion that legalization could lead to a
fivefold increase in drug use ("Myths'). Comparing this type of increase
in drug use and the idea that 35 million people now use drugs, the
conclusion would be that 165 million people would be drug users in the
United States. Considering the United States has only 200 million people
over age 12, believing that such a high number of people would use drugs is
hard. Gorman's report also includes Dr. Dupont's projection that if drugs
were legal 50 million people (1/4 the over 12 population) would use
marijuana regularly and that 60 million (nearly 1/3 the over twelve
population) would use cocaine regularly ("Myths'). These statistics are
scary, but they are just not possible and are not founded in the truth.
They are not possible because they would imply that one out of every three
people over age 12 walking down the street would become "regular cocaine
users." They are not founded in the truth because they use a statistic that
states, without explanation, that 70-75% of illicit drug users become
addicted ("Myths'). Only three percent of the users of cocaine, considered
one of the most addictive illicit drugs, that currently has 12.2 million
users annually, use cocaine once a week, and only 3.7% of users said that
they tried to quit, but couldn't. If we were to assume that all 200 million
Americans over 12 in the United States would use cocaine if it were legal,
then approximately 7.4 million people could not quit if they wanted to
(Berent and Evans, eds. 24).
Many Prohibitionists point to experiments on rats which imply that many
rats, when allowed access to cocaine, would prefer to use the cocaine over
eating. The problem with the experiment, however, was that the rats were
left isolated in cages. A similar experiment in which they placed rats in
more social environments found that rats consumed 16 times less cocaine than
the solitary rats. Also, the rats wouldn't use the cocaine at all until the
scientists made it very sweet with sugar, a taste rats cannot resist
(Trebach and Inciardi 37-38). Also, Prohibitionists argue that before drugs
were criminalized that 4.59 per 1,000 US citizens were addicts. This
implies two things: that when addiction was worst in the United States 99.6
percent of the people were not addicted to a drug, and that if we would
expect a return to these rates of addictions if drug Prohibition were
repealed, then about one million people would be addicted, a clear
contradiction to the claim that 70-75% of drug users become addicted
(Trebach and Inciardi 49).
Prohibition does not prevent a large number of people from harming
themselves, but while not helping users, the health of these individuals is
put in jeopardy. First, the illegalities of drugs make the drugs themselves
more unsafe. For example, marijuana is laced with unsafe fertilizers.
Also, when cocaine and heroin users receive an unexpected potent dose, they
may kill themselves when the same amount of a regulated dose would have
given the desired effect (Evans and Berent, eds. 22). This is what happened
to the Mia Wallace character in Pulp Fiction when she snorted cocaine that
was so potent that it nearly killed her (Pulp Fiction). Another outcome of
prohibition on the individual could also be considered a concern of society
since the spread of AIDS affects both groups. The transfer of AIDS through
needles needed most commonly during the use of heroin has become the most
common manner in which the disease currently spreads. The treatment and
prevention of the people who get AIDS from heroin use cannot be effective so
long as users are being persecuted by law enforcement (Trebach and Inciardi
35-36).
The implications of these two beliefs of proponents of decriminalization
are imperative to defense of the individual. "Defense of the individual"
means the protection of users and abusers from themselves. If drugs are not
as dangerous as currently legal drugs, addiction does not significantly
increase and the health of the users suffers, then proponents of Drug
Prohibition have no grounds on which to say that legalization would lead to
millions of deaths and addictions inflicted on drug users by themselves.
The United States needs to reconsider its view of drugs as leading to the
unavoidable downfall of the individual and instead as the choice of people
with social problems to avoid them.
In contrast with the defense of the individual, how Drug Prohibition does
not protect society, but instead harms it will complete the chain of
fallacies that plague proponents' arguments. To protect society, it should
be that its citizens should somehow be better off. This is not true as the
most expensive cost of the "Drug Prohibition" is the personal cost carried
by the citizens. In the cities, these costs are manifested in murders over
"turf" or "business," fear of walking the streets, robberies, and mothers
leaving children to pursue their expensive addictions (Wink). Proponents of
"Drug Prohibition" must ask themselves this question: "Would you be willing
to sacrifice your son (daughter, best friend) to keep drug users from
hurting themselves?" The reason I would have them to think of this is that
their children are not the ones dying on the street from a
drive-by-shooting. A famous economist Milton Friedman once said of the Drug
Prohibition, "While both groups of victims are to be pitied, the innocent
victims surely have a far better claim to our sympathy than the self-chosen
victims" (Evans and Berent, eds. 58). By examining the world around them
opponents of Drug Prohibition believe legalization will lead to less crime
and violent behavior, less racism, and the end of the infringement of
certain rights.
It is clear that Prohibition has a hand in each of these societal problems.
We would greatly reduce crime, for example, which repeatedly appears high on
surveys on the biggest problem America faces, if legalization were to
happen. Much of the concern about drugs and crime is that the use of drugs
somehow causes crime. These studies are usually faulted by the attempt to
label a cause on correlative data. While it is true that people who commit
crimes often use drugs as well, it cannot be said that the use of drugs
causes the crime. To use a less controversial example, I could notice that
every time my roommate puts on a certain shirt, his girlfriend comes over.
It would be silly to say that she comes over because he puts on the shirt.
In fact, we might say the opposite: that he puts on the shirt because his
girlfriend comes over. Saying either without having other knowledge would
be incorrect. Similarly, saying that drug use causes crime on this kind of
correlative data is not appropriate (Miller 61). Instead, many experts
claim that much of what is labeled "drug-related" crime is instead due to
criminality.
This criminality of drugs is a causal factor in crime because of the high
costs to consumers and high profits for suppliers. The market prices for
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin are about 100 times what the price would be
in a free market. This means crime results from consumers trying to fund
their artificially-expensive habit and suppliers trying to protect their
extremely high profits. Drug users committed about 75% of robberies,
thefts, and burglaries. These "criminals' do not commit as many crimes when
drugs are available to them at lower prices. On the other hand, one in four
murders and assaults involve suppliers protecting turf, settling disputes,
or stealing drugs (Duke). PCP, one of the most feared drugs, does not
incite aggressiveness or violent behavior, as previously believed (Miller
57). Dr. Lawrence Kolb, assistant surgeon general of the United States in
the 1920s said after a study of 225 addicted prisoners, "No opiate ever
directly influenced addicts to commit crime." He continued:
No addict who receives an adequate supply of opium and has money enough to
live is converted into a liar or thief by the direct result of the drug
itself. The direct effect is to remove the irritability and unrest so
characteristic of psychopathic individuals. The soothing effect of opiates
in such cases is so striking and universally characteristic that one is to
believe that violent crime would be much less prevalent if all habitual
criminals were addicts who could obtain sufficient morphine or heroin to
keep themselves fully charged with one of these drugs at all times. (Trebach
and Inciardi 57)

Violent crime by drug users is rare. A low percentage (7.5%) of homicides
involving drugs were classified in a way that implied that the drugs had
driven the user to murder. The other 92.5% of violent crime by drug users
could be expected to disappear once drugs were legalized and the cases
involved in the 7.5% would be expected to become more common as drug use
increased (Trebach and Inciardi 120). Nevertheless, for there to be an
equivalent number of drug-related homicides, the number of people driven by
drugs to commit murder would have to increase by tenfold. One example is
New York City, where about of six of 414 studied murders were caused by drug
use (see attached graph) (Miller 58).
Two social problems people tie together are crime and racism. Therefore,
Drug Prohibition must play a role in racism since it plays a key role in
crime. Researchers can show that the more efficient the "War on Drugs"
gets, the more racism that incurs. Black males 15- 24 had a homicide rate
nine times higher than white males in the same group. This high rate of
black-on-black crime has two unfortunate results: first, the black victims,
of course, and second, the fear of blacks by many whites. A racist person
would point to this large discrepancy between black and white homicide rates
as some sort of an inferiority (Trebach and Inciardi 34). The sad reality
is that Prohibition has created much of this discrepancy. The analogy
between selling drugs and stealing diamonds shows why this difference might
exist. If the death penalty were applied to people who stole diamonds, it
would discourage people from stealing diamonds since the value of the
diamonds did not increase. However, if the death penalty were applied to
drug dealers, there would still be an incentive to sell drugs since the
ability to receive profit from dealing drugs would increase. The difference
would then be that the people who had very little to lose have even more
incentive to deal drugs. These people who have little to lose are
disproportionally blacks or Hispanics. These forces drive many people into
the most despised positions of society (Trebach and Inciardi 35).
Also, the drug laws in the past have been and continue to be tools of
racism. In 1930, before the government had implemented many of the tools of
Drug Prohibition, a Colorado newspaper editor wrote, "I wish I could show
you what a small marihuana cigaret [sic] can do to one of our degenerate
Spanish-speaking residents." However, more of the resentment of Mexicans
seemed to be because Mexican labor was willing to work for lower wages
thereby producing fear in Anglos over their pocketbooks. The only tool they
could use to keep Mexican labor out of the market was the drug laws (Miller
98-99). During the 1950s, many places had laws against addiction. Due to
the nature of addiction, police could and did use this as an excuse to
harass African-Americans and Hispanics (Miller 101). This similarly
happened to the Chinese and opium, a drug previously used by many Anglos
(Miller 104). One could see how this could transfer into today as many
minorities complain about selective prosecution, which is understandable
considering the racial undertones of the original Drug Prohibition.
Since the inner cities receive a far greater share of the crime and racism
involved with Drug Prohibition, it is much more difficult for a rural
citizen to understand what these regulations do to the cities, but one
aspect of the Drug Prohibition that does harm to all of us by violating
our civil liberties. A government which calls 35 million of its citizens
criminals for actions which are within the scope of civil liberties is,
thereby, violating civil liberties. Government is supposed to allow us to
do what we wish if we do not interfere with others (Evans and Berent, eds.
58). With drugs, many proponents of drug decriminalization claim that few
users when allowed to use drugs in a free market would harm anyone. The
government has also gone beyond this violation of civil liberties into the
violating the democratic process by silencing discussion of the issue. For
example, no commission has ever been held on the issue. Since the
government does not investigate the issue, this suggests that the government
wishes to remain unaware of the issue (Evans and Berent, eds. 202). Also,
many pieces of legislation such as H.R. 135 are very undemocratic. The bill
asks that "no department or agency of the United States Government shall
conduct or finance, in whole or in part, any study or research involving the
legalization of drugs" (H.R. 135). This kind of legislation banning
research of the issue is, at least, scary. If the fact that enforcement
breeds poor international relations, undue cost on public health, crime, and
racism is bad, the fact that the government is infringing our rights every
day because of Drug Prohibition is atrocious and threatens our freedom.
Drug users are not the only ones crying out for their rights in this war.
Even Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall called many polices "the drug
exception to the Constitution." For example, one drug policy is that
customs officials can detain people for no less than 24 hours and not
release them until they agree to deficate in the examiners presence, they
allow the feces to be examinated, and no traces of drug appear. These
searches can be done without reason to believe guilt even without any
evidence at all (Trebach and Inciardi 26).
Enforcing Drug Prohibition requires invasions into the home since drug use
is generally something done in the home (Trebach and Inciardi 26). In
another case in Illinois, a couple was going on vacation to Florida. An
informant told the police department that they were going to Florida to buy
drugs. The problem was that this was not the usual informant that the
police picks up from time to time. This informant was totally anonymous,
even unknown to the detectives. The conviction was upheld though most the
evidence sprouted from the anonymous, invisible informant we associated with
the Soviet Union (Trebach and Inciardi 28-29). Finally, the act of
forfeiture is extremely heinous. If, for example, two kids were smoking
marijuana on your property, the police could take all your property. Even
if no charges are brought up against you, you must go to court and prove
your complete innocence (not just reasonable doubt) to reclaim your property
from the government. In fact, half of all people who forfeit their property
never get charged (Trebach and Inciardi 32).
How Drug Prohibition has not been beneficial to society now having been
demonstrated completes the long string of problems that have stemmed from
Drug Prohibition in the realms of international relations and public health
show where the costs appeared without any consideration having been given to
benefits. In contrast, when the benefits were considered, as was the case
on the issues concerning the drug user and society, the benefits did not pan
out or were not as important in the first place as the costs that have
resulted have been.
Clearly, Drug Prohibition harms international relations. However, one may
not be so willing to accept that it has the profound effects on public
health and societal problems. If we look back upon Alcohol Prohibition,
alcohol was considered as the worst evil, as we think of drugs now. In both
cases, the fear about the denegration of society was not well founded. The
health of the users suffered as they would drink stronger and stronger
alcohol as to keep the volume transported. Also, the unregulated
contraband was more dangerous than it would have been. Alcohol Prohibition
also created crime as Drug Prohibition does as we can see in the appearance
of the mafias like Al Capone which turned Chicago into a city troubled with
crime. The same cries for protection of rights were being heard as the FBI
was seen as invading our rights.
Our history demonstrates the evils of prohibition. One should wonder why
we would be willing to fight the righteous fight again when it is neither
righteous nor possible. Also, public opinion is peculiar given some facts.
First, Alcohol Prohibition was dissolved by popular opinion because of
crime, yet people continue to support Drug Prohibition although it creates
similar crime. Second, that we continue to support politicans who support
Prohibition eventhough not one has given a creative solution, or at least,
one we have not tried before. Finally, it is strange that people cannot see
through the problems associated with drugs and not see they are due to
Prohibition and not use itself. If the drugs were sold at what would be the
market price, the people who steal and rob would not have any reason to
steal, or at least would have to steal less often to support their now
cheaper habit. The people who have become the "evil welfare mothers" who
waste all their government money on drugs instead of caring for their
children could not squander all their precious money on drugs because they
would be so cheap their would be no reason to. All of these terrible
problems I've discussed, if not created by Prohibition, were greatly
intensified by Prohibition. The end of drug laws would mark a never before
seen improvement in the lives of every citizen. It is unfortunate that our
politicans, and even ourselves are too stuborn to even consider it.


WORKS CITED

Casas Arcila, David. Student at Fairmont Senior High School. Personal
Interview at his home, Fairmont, WV. 21 Sep. 1996.

"CIA, Contras, and Crack." The Christian Science Monitor. 1 Oct.
1996:20.

"Crime, Violence, and Drug Use Go Hand-in-Hand." Online. World Wide Web.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/legaliz/claim1.html. 27 Aug. 1996.

Duke, Steven B. "How Legalization Would Cut Crime." Los Angeles Times. (21
Dec. 1993). Online. World Wide Web.http://calyx.com/~schaffer/misc/
media2.html. 27 Aug. 1996.

Epstein, Jack. "Coca Czar Protests US War on Drugs." The Christian
Science Monitor. 26 Sept. 1996: 1

Evans, Rod L., and Berent, Irwin M., eds. Drug Legalization: For and
Against. La Salle, Ill: Open Court publishing Company. 1992.

García Márquez, Gabriel. "The Useless War." New York Times. 27 Feb. 1996:15.

H.R. 135. 104th Congress. First Session. Introduced by Rep. Solomon.
Online. World Wide Web. http://sunsite.unc.edu/warstop/hr135.html.

Miller, Richard Lawrence. The Case for Legalizing Drugs. New York:
Praeger Publisher, 1991.

""Myths' of "The Myths of Drug Legalization'." Online.
http://www.goldrush.com/~tyedye/drugs.html. Oct. 10, 1996.

Peterson, Sophia. "Human Rights." West Virginia University.
Morgantown, WV, 14 November 1996.

Pulp Fiction. Dir. Quentin Tarantino. With John Travolta, Samuel L.
Jackson, and Uma Thurman. Buena Vista Films. 1994.

Spiegel, Steven L. World Politics in a New Era. Fort Worth: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers. 1995.

Trebach, Arnold S. and Inciardi, James A. Legalize It?: Debating
American Drug Policy. Washington: The American University Press, 1993.

Wink, Walter. "Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Option." Online.
http://www.quaker.org/fj/wink.htmil#wink. Oct. 10, 1996.