Drug trafficking

These lollipops were found to contain heroin when inspected by the US DEA

The illegal drug trade is a worldwide black market consisting of production, distribution, packaging and sale of illegal psychoactive substances. The illegality of the black markets purveying the drug trade is relative to geographic location, and the producing countries of the drug markets (many South American, Far East, and Middle East countries) are not as inclined to have "zero-tolerance" policies, as the consuming countries of the drug trade (mostly United States and Europe) are. The economic reality of the massive profiteering inherent to the drug trade serves to extend its reach despite the best efforts of enforcement agencies worldwide. In the wake of the economic reality, the social consequences (crime, violence, imprisonment, social unrest) of the drug trade are undeniably problematic.

History

Early drug laws

Although the present "War on Drugs" is a distinctly modern phenomenon, drug laws have been a common feature of human culture throughout history.

Perhaps the earliest recorded example in the old world is the prohibition of the use of alcohol under Islamic law (Sharia), which is usually attributed to passages in the Qur'an purportedly dating from the 7th century. Some Muslim scholars assert that this prohibition actually addresses only the abuse of alcohol, but they do not have sufficient numbers or authority to override the familiar total prohibition. Although Islamic law is often interpreted as prohibiting all intoxicants (not only alcohol), the ancient practice of hashish smoking has continued throughout the history of Islam, against varying degrees of resistance. A major campaign against hashish-eating Sufis was conducted in Egypt in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields of cannabis, and the public torture of hashish users (Ref 1).

Religious intolerance was also the motivation for drug prohibition in Christian Europe. In a move interpreted as support of the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis. The persecution of heretics in the form of witch-hunts also gathered momentum around this time, and frequently targeted users of medicinal and hallucinogenic herbs. The Inquisition proceeded apace in Meso-America and South America, where peyote (péyotl), ololiúqui, toloáche, teonanácatl and other sacred plants of the Mexican culture were prohibited as works of the devil.

In Northern Europe, the Protestants were also responsible for passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance, according to Stephen Harrod Buhner (Ref 2). Buhner argues that the 1516 Reinheitsgebot, which stipulates that beer may only contain water, barley and hops was a "reflection of Protestant irritation about 'drugs' and the Catholic Church." Unlike the typically stimulating herbal blends widely used at the time (e.g. gruit), hops cause sedation and reduce libido. The exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268 (Ref 3).

Coffee almost followed the same fate as cannabis as its use spread from Ethiopia through the Middle East to Europe. Its use was banned in the Middle East on numerous occasions as in conflict with Islamic law, but eventually it came to be accepted. The introduction of coffee in Europe from Muslim Turkey also prompted calls for it to be banned as the Devil's work, however Pope Clement VIII sanctioned its use, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it."

In late Qing Imperial China, opium imported by the British East India Company was vastly consumed by all social classes in Southern China. Between 1821 and 1837 imports of the drug increased five-fold. The Chinese government attempted to end this trade, on public health grounds. The effort was initially successful with the destruction of all British opium stock in May 1839 . However, to protect this trade, the British declared war on China (First Opium War). China was defeated and the war which ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which protected foreign opium smugglers from Chinese law. A related American treaty promised to end the smuggling of opium by Americans. It took until the next Opium War for the trade to be legalised. The resulting trade greatly weakened Chinese society, and set into motion a chain of events that would lead to the massive Taiping Rebellion.

Twentieth century

The next great wave of anti-drug legislation began in the late 19th century, and continues to the present day. The United States has been the driving force in the present-day "War on Drugs."

The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875 . The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise," though there is no evidence to suggest this ever happened. The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug ^{[citation needed]}. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The dividing line was usually the manner in which the drug was ingested. Chinese immigrants smoked it, while it was included in various kinds of (generally liquid) medicines for people of European descent. The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it. [1] As a result of this discrepancy, modern commentators believe that these laws were racist in origin and intent.

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.[4]

This was followed by the Harrison Act, passed in 1914, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). While originally intended to require paper trails of drug transactions between doctors, drug stores, and patients, it soon became a prohibitive law. The law’s wording was quite vague; it was originally intended as a revenue tracking mechanism that required prescriptions for opiates. It became precedent that any prescription for a narcotic given to a drug addict by a physician or pharmacist – even in the course of medical treatment for addiction - constituted conspiracy to violate the Harrison Act. In the Supreme Court decision Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920) the court upheld that it was a violation of the Harrison act even if a physician provided prescription of a narcotic for an addict of any kind and thus, subject to criminal prosecution. The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1. This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 . Soon, however, the people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs.

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The prohibition of alcohol commenced in the United States in 1920 and Finland in 1919 . Because alcohol was the most popular recreational drug in these countries, reactions to its prohibition were very different to those of other drugs, which were commonly perceived to be associated with racial and ethnic minorities. Public pressure led to the repealing of alcohol prohibition in 1933 in the United States, 1932 in Finland. Residents of many provinces of Canada also experienced alcohol prohibition for similar periods of time in the first half of the 20th century.

In Sweden a referendum in 1922 decided against an alcohol prohibition law (with 51% of the votes against and 49% for prohibition), but starting in 1914 (nationwide from 1917) and until 1955 Sweden employed an alcohol rationing system with personal liquor ration books ("motbok").

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races." This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression. The law passed quickly and with little debate. The American Medical Association (AMA) protested the law soon after, both on the grounds of actual disagreement with the law and the supporters' lies on the subject; Anslinger and others had claimed the AMA had vocalized support when, in fact, the opposite was true. The passing of this law, along with the subsequent lies regarding the effects of cannabis, have deemed it more of a conspiracy than a racist act to control Mexicans. Although the latter is true, there exists a lot of evidence, as explained in "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer, that the law was passed in order to prohibit industrial hemp from becoming a competing industry with paper and cotton, but more importantly, newly discovered plastics (DuPont's Nylon), and the fuel industry.

In response to rising drug use amongst young people and the counter-culture in particular, efforts to enforce prohibition were strengthened in many countries from the late 1960s onwards. In 1972 United States President Richard Nixon announced the commencement of the so-called "War on Drugs." Later, President Reagan added the position of drug czar to the President's Executive Office.

Support at an international level for the prohibition of non-medical drug use has been a consistent feature of United States policy during both Republican and Democratic administrations, to such an extent that US support for foreign governments is sometimes contingent on adherence to US drug policy. Major milestones in this campaign include the successful introduction of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971 and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in 1988 .

In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (113g) of a hard drug, called the Rockefeller drug laws after New York Governor and later Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. Similar laws were introduced across the United States.

California's broader 'three strikes and you're out' policy adopted in 1994 was the first mandatory sentencing policy to gain widespread publicity and was subsequently adopted in most United States jurisdictions. This policy mandates life imprisonment for a third criminal conviction of any offense.

A similar 'three strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug.

In the United States today, mandatory sentencing laws are being questioned, due to prison overcrowding and controversy about the ethics of convicting non-violent drug addicts. Starting in 1989, a new institution was created, called the Drug Court, which offers non-violent drug users accused of crimes the opportunity to successfully complete substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The program, supported by the Department of Justice grew to over 1200 Drug Courts in each of the Fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia by 2003. Drug Courts are touted as one way to reduce criminal justice costs and recidivism, although those who support drug legalization criticize them as "forced treatment."

The current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Czar, John P. Walters has described the drug problem in the United States as a "public health challenge," and he has publicly eschewed the notion of a "war on drugs." He has supported additional resources for substance abuse treatment and has touted random student drug testing as an effective prevention strategy. However, the actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy continue to belie the rhetoric of a shift away from primarily enforcement-based responses to illegal drug use.

Prohibition of Drugs

Legal provisions

The regulation of drugs varies in many countries; cannabis and hashish, for example, are sometimes legal for personal use, though not sale. In some countries Dextromethorphan is available in ordinary over-the-counter products such as cough medicines. Alcohol possession and consumption by adults is today banned only in Islamic countries and various parts of India. The United States, Finland, and Canada banned alcohol in the early part of the 20th century; this was called Prohibition. Tobacco is not illegal for adults in most countries, with the notable exception of Bhutan (as of 2005). In some parts of the world, provisions are made for the use of traditional sacraments like Ayahuasca, Iboga, and Peyote. In Gabon, Africa, iboga (Tabernanthe iboga) has been declared a national treasure and is used in rites of the Bwiti religion. The active ingredient, ibogaine, is proposed as a treatment of opioid withdrawal and various substance use disorders.

In countries where alcohol and tobacco are legal, certain measures are frequently undertaken to discourage use of these drugs. For example, packages of alcohol and tobacco sometimes communicate warnings directed towards the consumer, communicating the potential risks of partaking in the use of the substance. These drugs also frequently have special sin taxes associated with the purchase thereof, in order to recoup the losses associated with public funding for the health problems the use causes in long-term users. Restrictions on advertising also exist in many countries, and often a state holds a monopoly on manufacture, distribution, marketing and/or the sale of these drugs.

Islamic countries mostly prohibit the use of alcohol, while most other states allow at least adults to purchase and consume alcohol. The United States, Finland, Canada, and the USSR also instituted alcohol prohibition in the first half of the 20th century. All countries regulate the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of some or all drugs, such as by using a prescription system. Only certain drugs are banned with a "blanket prohibition" against all use. However, the prohibited drugs generally continue to be available through the illegal drug trade. Many countries allow a certain amount of personal use of certain drugs, but not sale or manufacture. Some also set a specific amount of a particular drug, above which is ipso jure considered to be evidence of trafficking or sale of the drug.

In July 2000, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan ruled opium to be "against Islam" and outlawed it, with verbal and foreign aid support of the US government. After the Taliban was removed from power by the US (for other reasons), opium cultivation resumed in more widespread areas and in greater yield. In April 2004, Afghan interim president Hamid Karzai declared a jihad on drugs (after opium output reached a near-record 3,600 tonnes in 2003 — equivalent to three-quarters of world supply). Over the next two years, despite the assistance of several hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign anti-drug support, Afghanistan has raised opium production to 6,100 tonnes in 2006, produced on 407,000 acres (1,650 km²) of land, including nearly 30,000 acres (120 km²) of government land - a production estimated to exceed the global demand for opium by thirty percent.[2]

Illegal Drug Trade

In jurisdictions where legislation restricts or prohibits the sale of certain popular drugs, it is common for an (illegal) drug trade to develop. For example, the United States Congress has identified a number of controlled substances with corresponding drug trades.

Most nations consider drug trafficking a very serious problem. In 1989, the United States intervened in Panama with the goal of disrupting the drug trade coming from Panama. The Indian government has several covert operations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent to keep a track of various drug dealers. Some estimates placed the value of the global trade in illegal drugs at around US$400 billion in the year 2000; that, added to the global trade value of legal drugs at the same time, totals to an amount higher than the amount of money spent for food in the same period of time. In the 2005 United Nations World Drug Report, the value of the global illicit drug market for the year 2003 was estimated at US$13 billion at the production level, at US$94 billion at the wholesale level, and at US$322 billion based on retail prices and taking seizures and other losses into account.

Major consumer countries include the United States and European nations, although consumption is world-wide. Major producer countries include Afghanistan (opium) and Bolivia (primarily cocaine,and Colombia (primarily cocaine declining in the past years; see below for further details

Illegal Trade of Legal Drugs

Legal drugs like tobacco can be the subject of smuggling and illegal trading if the price difference between the origin and the destination are high enough to make it profitable. With taxes on tobacco much higher in the United Kingdom than on mainland Europe this is a considerable problem in the UK

Prescription drugs

Some prescription drugs are also available by illegal means, eliminating the need to manufacture and process the drugs. (Prescription opioids for example, are sometimes much stronger than heroin found on the street, example: the group of the fentanyl analogs.) They are sold either via stolen or partly divided prescriptions sold by medical practices and occasionally from Internet sale. However, it is much easier to control traffic in prescription drugs than in illegal drugs because the source is usually an originally legal enterprise and thus can often be readily found and neutralized.

Tobacco

The illegal trade of tobacco is motivated primarily by increasingly heavy taxation. When tobacco products such as name-brand cigarettes are traded illegally, the cost is as little as one third that of retail price due to the lack of taxes being applied as the product is sold from manufacturer to buyer to retailer. It has been reported that smuggling one truckload of cigarettes within the United States leads to a profit of 2 million U.S. dollars.[3]

The source of the illegally-traded tobacco is often the proceeds from other crimes, such as store and transportation robberies.

Sometimes, the illegal trade of tobacco is motivated by differences in taxes in two jurisdictions, including smuggling across international borders. Smuggling of tobacco from the US into Canada has been problematic, and sometimes political where trans-national native communities are involved in the illegal trade.

The kingdom of Bhutan made the sale of tobacco illegal in December 2004,[4] and since this time a flourishing black market in tobacco products has sprung up. In 2006, tobacco and betel nut were the most commonly seized illicit drugs in Bhutan. [5]

Internet and controlled substances

"No Prescription Websites" (NPWs) offer to sell controlled substances without a valid prescription. NPWs were first recognized by the U.S. Justice Department in 1999, indicating that such sites had been operating at least through the late 1990s. NPWs enable dealers and users to complete transactions without direct contact. While many NPWs accept credit cards, others only accept cash thereby further reducing any paper trail. Many NPWs are hosted in countries in which specific categories of controlled substances are locally legal (e.g. prescription opioids in Mexico), but because of the global nature of the internet, NPWs are able to do (mostly illegal) business with customers around the globe. In addition to prescription opioids, stimulants, and sedatives, steroids are often widely distributed. To date, no websites have been found offering directly to sell illegal drugs like heroin, illegal amphetamine or methamphetamine derivatives, or cocaine, however the police have uncovered several instances of dealers/drug rings using Craigslist personal ads to solicit drug business using code words and phrases. All other categories of drugs are readily available online.

2004 saw the conclusion of Operation Web Tryp, focusing on companies selling so-called research chemicals, legal psychedelic phenethylamines and tryptamines on the Internet.

Trade of Illegal Drugs

The market for illegal drugs is massive. Being a black market, huge profits are created from the scarcity and risk involved. Some of those illegal drugs sold for high profits include heroin, anabolic steroids, marijuana, LSD, Psilocybin mushrooms, opium, and Methamphetamine.

Violent resolutions

Because disputes cannot be resolved through legal means, participants at every level of the illegal drug industry are inclined to compete with one another through violence. Some statistics have shown that a large percentage of murders recorded are a result of the drug trade. This plays a role in the gun politics debate due to the number of drug-related murders that are committed with a firearm.

Many have argued that the arbitrariness of drug prohibition laws from the medical point of view, especially the theory of harm reduction, worsens the problems around these substances.

War on Drugs

Drug Control Strategy

Present drug control efforts utilise several techniques to achieve their goals of eliminating recreational drug use:

• Disrupting the market for drugs
• Prevention efforts that rely on community activism, public information campaigns to educate the public on the potential dangers of drug use
• Law-enforcement efforts against current users, through medical screenings, workplace testing and Drug Courts
• Law-enforcement efforts against elements of the supply chain, through surveillance and undercover work
• Providing effective and targeted substance abuse treatment to dependent users

Methods of Enforcement

Disrupting the Market relies on eradication, interdiction and domestic law enforcement efforts.

Through cooperation with governments such as Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan, coca (the plant source for cocaine) and poppy (the plant source for opium and heroin) are eradicated by the United States and other allies such as the United Kingdom, so that the crops cannot be processed into narcotics. Eradication can be accomplished by aerial spraying or manual eradication. The government of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has resisted criticism of aerial spraying of coca and poppy and has seen major reductions in both crops according to the United Nations Office of Crime and Drugs.Note 7: The United States government's Plan Colombia has been quite effective. In 2003, over 1,300 square kilometres of mature coca were sprayed and eradicated in Colombia, where at the start of the year, approximately 1,450 square kilometres had been planted. This strategic accomplishment prevented the production over 500 metric tons of cocaine, sufficient to supply all the cocaine addicts in both US and Europe for one year. Further, it eliminated upward of $100 million of illicit income that supports narco-terrorism in Colombia.Note 8: No effect on prices or availability in the marketplace has been noted.

Interdiction is carried out primarily by aerial and naval armed forces patrolling known trafficking zones. From South America to the United States most drugs traverse either the Caribbean Sea or the Eastern Pacific, usually in "go-fast" boats that carry drug cargos and engines and little else.

Investigation on drug trafficking often begins with the recording of unusually frequent deaths by overdose, monitoring financial flows of suspected traffickers, or by finding concrete elements while inspecting for other purposes. For example, a person pulled over for traffic violations may have illicit drugs in his or her vehicle, thus leading to an arrest and/or investigation of the source of the materials. The federal government has placed a premium on disrupting the large drug trafficking organizations that move narcotics into and around the United States, while state and local law enforcement focus on disrupting street-level drug dealing gangs. Law enforcement has been effective in arresting and disrupting large-scale drug trafficking organizations, but often lament the fact that with such a lucrative commodity, others move in to take over quickly.

Penalties

Penalties for for use and distribution of illegal drugs or illegal distribution of legal drugs vary widely around the world. Many countries, such as Canada and the Netherlands, have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of controlled substances. In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and sale can vary from a small fine to a prison sentence. In some states, marijuana possession is considered to be a petty offense, with the penalty being comparable to that of a speeding violation. In some municipalities, possessing a small quantity of marijuana in one's own home is not even punishable at all. Generally, however, drug possession is an arrestable offense, although first-time offenders rarely serve jail time. Other countries have even harsher laws. Indonesia, for example, carries a maximum penalty of death for drug dealing, and a maximum of 15 years prison for drug use. In practice, this is rarely carried out against Indonesian citizens, however they have controversially executed many overseas tourists to the country.

Drug prohibition has created several legal dilemmas. For example many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as failing to ensure equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.

Another legal dilemma is the creation of a legal loop hole allowing for the arbitrary arrest and prosecution of anyone in several countries. This is the result of several drugs such as Dimethyltryptamine, GHB and morphine being illegal to possess but also inherently present in all humans as a result of endogenous synthesis. Since some jurisdictions classify possession of drugs to include having the drug present in the blood in any concentration, all residents of such countries are technically in possession of multiple illegal drugs at all times.

The War on Drugs has stimulated the creation of international law enforcement agencies (such as Interpol), mostly in Western countries. This has occurred because a large volume of illicit drugs come from Third-World countries.

Arguments against prohibition, and for legalization/decriminalization

Moral and Religious

Many of the arguments for drug prohibition are based on perceptions of drugs as dangerous to people, which creates the basis for a moral opposition to drug use. Some of these perceptions are based on common knowledge or scientific evidence, indicating how certain drugs are detrimental to individuals and communities. Those who are against prohibition argue, however, that even though drugs can be dangerous to people, it would be much easier to control their use if drugs were legal. The legalization of drugs would then be perceived as a more ethical way to deal with the problem.

Some religious groups including the União do Vegetal, Native American Church and the Rastafari movement use psychoactive substances as sacrament in religious rituals. In some religious practice, drugs are sometimes used as a conduit to an oceanic feeling or divine union , equated with mysticism or entheogenic ('that which causes God to be within an individual') experiences. In others, the 'entactogenic' qualities of drugs are used to enhance feelings of empathy among congregations.

Almost all nations have signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, amongst other human rights treaties, as a set of moral standards for the world to live by. One of the fundamental rights enshrined in international human rights law is the right to freedom of thought, which current case law may suggest is violated by a blanket prohibition of drugs^{[citation needed]}.

Other human rights, such as the right to freedom from discrimination, are also often said to be violated, due to the arbitrary difference in treatment between those who use illegal drugs and those who use often more harmful legal ones.

In opposition to the mentioned opposition to the intoxicating or mind-altering effects of drugs, some argue that altered states and experimentation are able to push the boundaries of human experience. There is thus a moral imperative to experiment with drugs in terms of human progress, teleological development, or just increased artistic creativity; such ideas are central to Cognitive Liberty, Stoned Ape Theory and Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception.

Crime/terrorism

Critics of drug prohibition often cite the fact that the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies to support the argument that legalization of drugs could have similar effects. Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake" (Riga 53). When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.

Drug money has been called a major source of income for terrorist organizations. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terrorism. While politicians blame drug users for being a major source of financing terrorists, no clear evidence of this link has been provided. US government agencies and government officials have been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions in events such as the Iran-Contra Affair, and Manuel Noriega but the isolated nature of these events precludes them from being major sources of financing.

Over 2,000 people in Mexico alone have been murdered in drug trafficking related violence in 2006. [6]

Prohibition causes more harm than good

Despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, drugs have become more accessible, cheaper, and more potent. The illegality of injectable drugs leads to a scarcity of needles which causes an increase in HIV infections. The money spent on both increased health costs due to HIV infections and drug prohibition itself causes a drain upon society. Despite the fact that most drug offenders are non-violent, the stigma attached to a conviction can prevent employment and education.

Legal dilemmas

Drug prohibition has created several legal dilemmas. For example many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as failing to ensure equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.^{[citation needed]}

Several drugs such as Dimethyltryptamine, Morphine and GHB are illegal to possess but are also inherently present in all (Dimethyltryptamine and Morphine) humans as a result of endogenous synthesis. Since some jurisdictions classify possession of drugs to include having the drug present in the blood in any concentration, all residents of such jurisdictions are technically in possession of multiple illegal drugs at all times.

Forbidding drugs can romanticize them

The war on drugs is counterproductive to the goal of discouraging drug use. The primary mechanism for this is reverse psychology. Forbidden things become fodder for rebellion, and illegal drugs have been popularized by this perception. In addition, the ability of the government to enforce drug laws among those below the age of 18 is diminished, which causes high school aged people to become a popular conduit through which drugs are distributed, a counterpoint to "protect the children" arguments of those for prohibition.

This argument is often summed up as the allure of the forbidden fruit, which is increased because it is forbidden.

Criminalization increases profits for drug dealers

Legalization would reduce the profits of drug dealing. The illegal drug business is very profitable since the price of a product increases when it is made illegal. "Whenever there is a great demand for a product and (the) government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand" (Official United States Libertarian Party Platform).

Yearly drug trafficking earnings average to about 60 billion US dollars and range as high as 100 billion US dollars a year in the US alone (Duke and Gross 33). Marijuana is the largest cash crop in ten states as well as in the US as a whole[7]

"Revenues from drug trafficking in Miami, FL., are greater than those from tourism, exports, health care and all other legitimate businesses combined" (Wink 108). The U.S. illegal drug market is one-eighth of the total world market, making it the largest illegal drug market in the world (Rodriguez). Worldwide, the trade in illegal recreational drugs is estimated to be worth as much as US$ a billion per year, approximately the same value as the legitimate trade in pharmaceutical drugs used in medicine.^{[citation needed]}

Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our streets" (qtd. in Boaz). Additionally, drug dealers show off expensive jewelry and clothing to young children (Duke and Gross 33). Some of these children are interested in making fast money instead of working legitimate jobs (Kane 157). Drug legalization would remove the "glamorous Al Capone-type traffickers who are role-models for the young" (Wink 111).

Economics

The United States efforts at drug prohibition started out with a US$350 million budget in 1971, and is currently (in 2006) a US$30 billion campaign. These numbers only include direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, and as such only represent part of the total cost of prohibition. This $30 billion figure rises dramatically once other issues, such as the economic impact of holding 400,000 prisoners on prohibition violations, are factored in.

The war on drugs is extremely costly to such societies that outlaw drugs in terms of taxpayer money, lives, productivity, the inability of law enforcement to pursue mala in se crimes, and social inequality. Some proponents of legalization say that the financial and social costs of drug law enforcement far exceed the damages that the drugs themselves cause. For instance, in 1999 close to 60,000 prisoners (3.3% of the total incarcerated population) convicted of violating marijuana laws were behind bars at a cost to taxpayers of some $1.2 billion per year. In 1980, the total jail and prison population was 540,000, about one-quarter the size it is today. Drug offenders accounted for 6% of all prisoners. Today drug offenders account for nearly 25%. Libertarian Party opponents to the drug war have stated that if the US government legalized only marijuana, US taxes could be reduced by one third. ^{[citation needed]}

Personal freedom

Many believe what persons do in private should not be regulated by the government. It is argued that persons should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, as long as they do not harm others. Such arguments often cite the harm principle of philosopher John Stuart Mill who urged that the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign' and 'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.' This argument was used in relation to recreational drug use by Aleister Crowley. The argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and as such the government has no right to prohibit it or punish drug consumers, much like the government does not forbid overeating, which causes significantly more deaths per year. This can be equated with the quest for freedom of thought.

Consistency

It has been shown that ending prohibition reduces the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as The Netherlands [8].

Since alcohol prohibition ended and the War on Drugs began, there has been much debate over the issue of consistency among legislators with regard to drug prohibition. Many anti-prohibition activists focus on the well-documented dangers of alcohol (such as alcoholism, cystisis, domestic violence, brain and liver damage). In addition to anecdotal evidence, they cite statistics to show more deaths caused by drunk driving than by drivers under the influence of cannabis, more assaults instigated by drunks than by smokers, and more property damage.

Although there has not been one single substantiated case for the last 100 years in medical history of a marijuana overdose (death), two other legal drugs have been the cause of more than half a million deaths a year in the USA alone: 480,000 deaths from tobacco smoking-related illnesses and 80,000 from alcohol abuse. Although these drugs constitute about 20% of all yearly deaths in the US, and although preventable by direct prohibition, they are legal to use. This shows an inconsistency between the declared motives of the law enforcement agencies to reduce harm and the laws themselves. Some activists argue that it is inconsistent that alcohol is legal for those over 21 in the United States, while marijuana is absolutely illegal.

Illegal drug impurities

Often when illegal drugs are purchased in the underground market, there is no care for hygiene, and drugs may be cut with other substances or sold under different guises to increase supply, sale potential, profit, or user addiction potential. This can be dangerous as even though numerous illegal drugs have very low toxicity levels (low potential for overdose) and low addiction potential their safety status can be altered dramatically if they contain other chemicals of which the buyer is unaware. This can increase the potential for unexpected effects, overdoses, and drug dependence. For instance, tablets sold as MDMA have commonly been found to contain methamphetamine as the primary active ingredient or include methamphetamine in addition to other drugs.^{[citation needed]} Methamphetamine has much higher comparative addictive potential than MDMA, and a higher risk of overdose as demonstrated by its LD50s. Dozens of people died in one year in Cook County alone, in relation to ingesting heroin unknowingly cut with fentanyl. [9] Black tar heroin has been known to carry wound botulism. Variable heroin purity, active cutting agents, and contaminated product is one of the major dangers of heroin use, and is strictly caused by prohibition.

Health

Traditional health use

Many cultures have used, and still use the same drugs that are illegal under prohibition for both medicine, and comfort with success. It can be argued that if the benefits of a drug can be made clear then the prohibition of the drug is unfounded.

Drug addiction as a public health issue

If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. By selling drugs in state clinics or stores, the government would be able to maintain quality control over drug sales. As with alcohol, government agencies would guarantee purity and safety (Wink 111-113). Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross conclude that drug legalization would result in a reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose. Producers and traffickers currently sell poisonously diluted drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. Legalization would allow a control of the diluted form and extent.

"If drug purities were standardized and clearly and accurately labeled, the likelihood of a person accidentally overdosing would be much less than it is under the present regime" (37-38). Administration of clean hypodermic needles would lessen disease transmitted by drug abusers, including AIDS. Pregnant women with drug problems would receive better prenatal care (Duke 116-117). Furthermore, the introduction of addictive agents added into the drug can also be regulated.

Judge James P. Gray, an advocate of drug legalization, believes that the only way to solve a progressively unsuccessful war on drugs is to decriminalize it and make it a health issue (Luna). Currently, it is difficult for drug users to ask for help or seek treatment because of the criminal status of drugs; drug abuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes "it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled criminals and go to jail—with almost no hope of therapy or rehabilitation—while the users of the powerful drug alcohol are considered sick and given therapy." The government provides very little funding for drug treatment (53), resulting in the abuse of addicted people. New York City imprisons one drug abuser for more than 150 dollars per day, but ignores the need of the user. Convicted addicts without money have to wait at least four months for therapy (Kane 155). Treatment is "available for only about 15 [percent] of the nation's drug addicts." Recurrently, judges have to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines when prosecuting drug users. The New York Times mentions that in New York in April 1993, two federal judges were fed up with the guidelines and refused to hear any case that was drug-related (Riga 53).

Some drugs cannot be used for medical purposes because of prohibition. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug, which means that it has no accepted medical uses. The benefits of its use include easing the pain of terminally ill patients. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+).

The rationing out of medicines often creates the situation where a patient with legitimate analgesic needs is provided with an inadequate supply. As many physicians are wary of being placed on law enforcement watchlists, newer and relatively untested non-narcotic pain relievers are frequently prescribed instead of opioids. One such medication was Vioxx, later found to be responsible for an estimated 26,000 to 55,000 deaths by heart attack and stroke.

As many people initially only inject heroin to stretch a limited amount (usually due to limited funds), intravenous heroin abuse was practically non-existent back when the substance was legal and cheap. Therefore, drug prohibition is directly responsible for drastically accelerating the spread of HIV/AIDS among North-American heterosexuals. Needle sharing among heroin users has widened the spread of other diseases as well, such as hepatitis C, tetanus, and endocarditis.

The Netherlands government treats drug use as a health problem, not a criminal problem (although there is criminal punishment for trafficking in some "hard drugs"). Because of the country's decision, treatment for drug addiction is widely available in the Netherlands. In Amsterdam 75 percent of heroin addicts are on treatment. HIV infection rate among injective drug users in cities like Amsterdam has dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent and is now one of the lowest in the world.

Research published in March, 2007 by the United Kingdom's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), advocated by Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (UK) into the harm caused by 20 different common recreational drugs, claimed that if recreational drugs were all classified under the current UK ABC system (A focusing on hard drugs, such as heroin, and, strangely, ecstasy and mushrooms containing psilocin or psilocybin, C containing the soft drugs such as Cannabis and ketamine) then alcohol would be a Class A drug (punishment for possession being 7 years incarceration and an unlimited fine, supply incurring life in prison and an unlimited fine), and Tobacco would be a Class B drug, joining amphetamines (with a punishment of a maximum of 5 years incarceration and an unlimited fine for possession, and 14 years incarceration and an unlimited fine for supplying). The Study suggested a drugs policy that reflected the actual harm of the drug - Heroin and Cocaine topping the list, followed by Alcohol at 5th, Tobacco at 9th, with Cannabis at 11th - the study takes into account the stronger hydroponic skunk that now is the most common form of cannabis in the UK, and the recent studies on the capacity for Cannabis use to enduce mental disorders such as Paranoid Schizophrenia and Psychotic Disorder. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) was ranked 14th, and ecstasy 18th. The harm ratings were based upon completely pure drug consumption - something that is incredibly rare in Britain, where the average ecstasy pill contains less that 15% MDMA, and is cut with amphetamine, methamphetamine, morphine, 2c-b, caffine and occasionally strychnine, creating complex synergystic effects that the user is unlikely to anticipate, and the harm caused is far more difficult to estimate. Proponents of legalisation argue that this not only demonstrates a palpable hypocrisy, but shows how much safer narcotics could be if they were legaly produced. An interesting case study of the problem of impurities is demonstrated by the influx of the highly dangerous para-methoxyampethamine (PMA) compound into the Australian drug scene, where it was sold as ecstasy causing a large number of overdoses. Proponents argue that this could be prevented by legal production and control.

A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl with which their heroin had been cut, the more toxic (and easier to make) derivative MDA sold as MDMA ^{[citation needed]}, etc.

User cost of drugs

When the cost of drugs increases, drugs users are more likely to commit crimes in order to obtain money to buy the expensive drugs (Duke 115). Legalizing drugs would make drugs reasonably cheap (Kane 155). Poor addicts or recreational users would be capable of honest work and would not be driven to crime to support their habits.

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws

Some consider the war on drugs, at least in the United States, to be a "war on some drugs"...and some drug users. Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize African-Americans more harshly and more often than other ethnic groups, and to penalize the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes. The belief that "hard" drugs such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences than "soft" drugs such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100* times the same amount of powder cocaine.

• This disparity was lessened during the Clinton administration when the Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act changed the ratio to 10 to 1.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of offenders convicted for selling crack are poor and/or black, while the majority of those convicted for selling cocaine are not. In fact, Blacks only constitute 13% of all known drug users, but represent 35% of all arrests for drug possession and 74% of all those sentenced to prison for drug possession. In addition, the convention of selling crack in heavily patrolled neighborhoods makes crack dealers easier targets for arrest than cocaine dealers, who tend to operate in private areas, such as dance clubs and college campuses. If this does not demonstrate that anti-drug laws are useless in themselves (so the argument goes), it shows that they are clearly being implemented inequitably.

The creation of drug cartels

Massive arrests of local growers of marijuana, for example, not only increases the price of local drugs, but protects the major drug cartels from any competition. Only major retailers that can handle massive shipments, have their own small fleet of aircraft, troops to defend the caravans and other sophisticated methods of eluding the police (such as lawyers), can survive by this regulation of the free market by the government.

Milton Friedman:"...it is because it's prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."

Effect on producer countries

The United States' "War on Drugs" has added considerably to the political instability in South America. The huge profits to be made from cocaine and other South American-grown drugs are largely due to the fact that it is illegal in the wealthy neighbouring nation. This drives people in the relatively poor countries of Colombia, Peru and Brazil to break their own laws in organising the cultivation, preparation and trafficking of cocaine to the States. This has allowed criminal, paramilitary and guerrilla groups to reap huge profits, exacerbating already serious law-and-order and political problems. Coca farming has been practiced for centuries in Andean countries, producing coca leaves which are then chewed for their mild stimulant effect. Many of these farmers' livelihoods (whether or not they are supplying the cocaine trade) are destroyed by U.S. sponsored herbicide spraying, usually by air. Producer countries are also given further economic stimulus to grow illicit drugs as a cash crop by the dumping of subsidised farming products (fruit, vegetables, grain etc.) produced by Western countries (predominantly US and EU agricultural surpluses) (see BBC reference, below).

Recently, this has become a huge problem in Afghanistan as well, which went from producing practically no drugs in 2000 having been banned by the Taliban to cultivating as much as 90% of the world's opium (6,100 tonnes according to a United Nations report from September 2006). This has destabilized the government to the point that the top NATO commander in Afghanistan recently warned that the majority of Afghanistan's citizens could support a Taliban return by the summer if conditions do not improve.

Furthermore, the sale of the illegal drugs produces an influx of dollars that is outside the formal economy, and puts pressure on the currency exchange keeping the dollar low and making the export of legal products more difficult.

Same policy for distinctive drugs

Many drug policies group all illegal drugs into a single category. Since drugs drastically vary in their effects, dosages, methods of production, and consumption the arguments for or against drug prohibition are blurred.

In contrast the medical community will group drugs based upon common effects. This allows them to properly regulate the usage of the drugs. Should all prescription drugs be regulated under the same system, doctors may find it difficult to prescribe antibiotics due to the fact they are in the same category as addictive prescription drugs.

Use of more dangerous but more easily accessible drugs

Because some drugs are difficult to make or acquire under prohibition users and producers may instead turn to more dangerous drugs that are easier to obtain or attempt dangerous procedures to make drugs covertly.

For example because a drug like cocaine, is too expensive, users may turn to another drug like methamphetamine that is arguably more dangerous, but also more easily synthesized.

Another example is when a drug is too hard to traffic and sell easily some users may turn to making it themselves to save money or to keep an easy supply of the drug. If the user is unqualified in chemistry, unwanted reactions may occur. Illict synthesis of methamphetamine often results in an end product dangerously contaminated with toxic byproducts, including chemicals from the reaction such as toluene, iodine or phosphorus, or potent neurotoxins such as 4-iodomethamphetamine.

Similarly homebake heroin may contain contaminants such as pyridine and acetic anhydride. Also dealers often dilute drugs in order to make limited supplies stretch further, using any white powder that comes to hand including chalk, salt or flour. Many people have died from injecting drugs contaminated in this way.

The synthesis of Nitrous oxide from ammonium nitrate is another example; explosive byproducts are easily created, which means that property damage or severe injuries are likely. Instances are known of individuals suffering death or severe injury after inhaling the highly toxic gas nitric oxide having mistaken it for nitrous oxide.

Due to the lack of availability of other drugs, some communities have seen a rise of comparatively more dangerous drugs such as inhalant abuse. This increased use of dangerous legal products, according to some critics, has been more harmful to society than regulated sales of the currently illegal drugs would have been.

Deliriant drugs such as nutmeg and datura are not illegal, even though they are both more likely than most illegal drugs to cause death from acute overdose, and have a higher tendency to cause confusion and potentially violent unpredictable behaviour. Some medicines such as Benadryl (diphenhydramine) and Dramamine (dimenhydrinate) are sometimes taken in dangerous overdoses when people try to use them to achieve deliriant effects.

Toad licking has also been noted to cause deaths, for instance in an incident where a man died from confusing the hallucinogenic Colorado River Toad with another kind of toad that sweats powerful cardiotoxic steroids.

Block to research

The illegality of many recreational drugs may be dissuading research into new more effective and perhaps safer recreational drugs. For example it has been proposed that a safer substitute to alcohol with many of the same desired effects could be created imparting many health and safety benefits to society. Furthermore, the compensation received and knowledge gained in the creation of new recreational drugs might allow for more basic research into human biology, treatments for medical conditions such as depression, and general improvements in the functionality of humans. Also the illegality of recreational drugs may be hindering the ability of companies to discover and market drugs that could be used for recreation but could also be effective as medical treatments.

Legitimate medical use of illegal drugs

It has been shown that there may be legitimate medical uses to various illegal drugs, such as use of MDMA for cognitive enhancement in people with Parkinson's Disease, or its administration for people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, such as people who have been raped. The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies is a non-profit research and educational organization which assists scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of MDMA, psychedelic drugs and marijuana. MAPS' mission is to sponsor scientific research designed to develop psychedelics and marijuana into FDA-approved prescription medicines, and to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of these drugs.

Arguments for prohibition, and against legalization/decriminalization

Health

One common reason given for the prohibition of the use of certain drugs is to prevent an increase in health risks to those who might use prohibited drugs. Possible immediate detrimental health effects include altered awareness, reduced motor control, poisoning, and death by overdose. Prohibited drugs may also detrimentally impact broader long term measures of health and well being such as educational performance, standard-of-living, and incidence of depression.^{[citation needed]}

There is concern over a variety of other possible links between health problems and specific prohibited drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents)^{[citation needed]}; physical addiction and substance cravings; co-morbid diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C^{[citation needed]}; psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis, and others. Health risk profiles may vary substantially between different prohibited drugs.^{[citation needed]}

In many cases though there is contention as to whether apparent correlations between use of a prohibited drug and an increased health risk results from the drug use itself or results from other factors such as the prohibition of drugs (or related social/ sociological/ legal issues related to such prohibition), economic situations, or social situations.^{[citation needed]}

The U.S. government has argued that illegal drugs are "far more deadly than alcohol" because "[a]lthough alcohol is used by seven times as many people as drugs, the number of deaths induced by those substances is not far apart." [10] However, there is evidence that many illicit drugs pose comparatively fewer health dangers than certain licit drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco). In the UK, an average of 500,000 people take ecstasy every weekend, resulting in an average of only 10 ecstasy related deaths a year, whilst there is one death a day due to acute alcohol poisoning.[11].

Economics and psychosocial arguments

While a distinction is often made between 'problem use' of drugs (addiction, alcoholism, binge drinking etc.) and recreational use of drugs (e.g. in clubbing or party settings), possession and sale of illicit drugs remains illegal (ref. the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).

Psychoactive substances, licit or illicit, typically bear a substantial 'cost to society'. Social costs may take numerous forms, for example short- and long-term healthcare provision; harm reduction programs; addiction treatment; public nuisance and third party damage; absence from work and lost productivity; crime committed by drug users while 'under the influence'; and, often primarily, costs associated with identifying/ arresting/ prosecuting/ incarcerating/ reintegrating into society people involved in the drug trade ^{[citation needed]}.

In the case of licit psychoactive substances (e.g. alcohol and tobacco), such costs are easily ascertainable and are rarely redeemed ^{[citation needed]} by tax revenue or the economic/employment contribution made by their manufacturers. The World Health Organization published a Global Status Report on Alcohol (2004). In this report, the social and economic costs of alcohol abuse in the US was estimated at $184.6 billion (1998). In the case of illegal drugs, it is harder to define precise figures for the cost of drugs given the underground nature of the market, although existing estimates for social costs are high: the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 2006) ^{[citation needed]} places the cost at $181 billion per year in the US. Moreover, in the case of illegal drugs, there is no revenue from taxation to subsidise such societal costs.

An additional, micro-economic argument is that drug users (especially problem users) tend to spend a considerable portion of their day-to-day budget on drugs. As any legalisation is likely to be accompanied by high taxation of the drugs, problem drug users — or those with borderline-heavy drug consumption — might increase current spending, particularly as they will no longer suffer the current stigma attached to purchasing from a dealer or criminal (for example, cigarettes in many countries are as expensive as crack, while cannabis typically offers cheaper intoxication than alcohol ^{[citation needed]}). While prohibitionists may be criticised for paternalistic attitudes to protecting an individual from self-harm, there exists a genuine risk that, with no legal thresholds to purchase and a commercial interest for the (legal) vendor to sell as much as possible, users might be tempted to 'max out' on their drug spending.

One economic argument for defending prohibition of certain substances is to protect traditional producers of legal psychoactive substances (in particular alcohol) from competing with 'newly-legalised entrants' into the recreational drug market. The argument (an example of protectionism) runs that legal drugs are valuable cultural artifacts and provide a livelihood to entire industries, populations and regions. To use the alcohol example, today's products have emerged over centuries to provide intoxication and delivery of dose in a societally-acceptable fashion. Low-potency products (beer/wine) in particular have evolved to extend sought-after effects to provide sustainable revenues for retail outlets. It is uncertain whether illegal drugs, after prohibition, could sustain similar levels of economic activity or employment, and whether increased polydrug consumption would threaten traditional, legal drug sellers.

Drug prohibition as a solution to perceived problems of society

Some proponents of drug prohibition, such as members of the Temperance movement, support drug prohibition on the basis that many of the perceived problems or flaws of society are caused by the use of drugs or drug addiction. As to maintain consistency with this stance, these proponents often call for prohibition of alcohol^{[citation needed]}. Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts and drug pushers (attracted by profits) if drugs are legalized. They believe addicts are more likely to commit more crimes because their minds are altered (some drugs may cause harmful behaviour), much as drunk criminals do sometimes^{[citation needed]}.

Commercial exploitation of addictive drugs

Some people, especially those who might otherwise support drug legalization, are against it because of the impact upon society of the commercial exploitation of the addictive potential of drugs. The basic concept is that tobacco and alcohol are extremely popular even though they are relatively more dangerous than many illegal drugs and are subjectively less pleasurable. This, critics say, is attributable to the profit motive and large marketing campaigns of tobacco and alcohol companies. If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasurable, then, critics say, even more people would become addicted because of marketing and additives^{[citation needed]}. This genre of critics is pessimistic that a system could never be created whereby drugs could be legalized but not be commercially exploited. They often call for reinstated prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, or rather regulatory approaches to curb substance use such as: taxation, advertising bans, retail outlet and venue licensing, control over venue design, drinking curfews, etc.^{[citation needed]} One factor critics point to is the tremendous lobbying power of alcohol and tobacco companies, as well as the large areas of commerce that are already related to illegal drugs, such as t-shirts about drugs, or songs about drugs. These critics also dismiss the idea that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper, pointing to the fact that most brands of alcohol are more expensive than most illegal drugs for an equivalent level of inebriation (this might be true in the USA, UK, Scandinavian, Muslim and some other countries, but is not true in most other countries; also, prescription drugs, as opioids, are much cheaper, when legally bought, than similar illegal drugs)^{[citation needed]}. Many of these critics feel that those involved in the production of certain currently legal drugs such as tobacco and prescription opioids are already profiting off of the addiction of their users. This criticism is directed not only toward the commercial exploitation of physiological addiction, but also of psychological addiction, which in addition to drug use can occur in relation to many types of behavior, for example gambling, overeating and economic consumption^{[citation needed]}. However, the ability of companies to advertise tobacco goods has been severely limited in countries such as Britain, where advertising is banned for Tobacco. A similar measure could easily be applied (and is likley to be) if currently illegal intoxicants were legalised.

Sell-out and loss of 'counterculture'

Allied with the commercial exploitation argument is an argument that legalising any illicit substances will remove their cachet as countercultural substance or symbolic role as a visible shibboleth for revolutionary, rebellious and DIY culture movements, and also dilute any cultural identification with ethnic, religious and ideological groups. While many see this as a pro-legalisation argument (the normalisation of recreational drug-taking being a goal), others envisage a sell-out and corporatisation of the underground culture that revolves around drugs. A common idea is reflected in a statement by legalisation supporter Richard Branson: 'I believe it's a product that should not be too commercialised and is better suited to being marketed by small café-style specialists.' (quoted in a London Evening Standard article), although many doubt the strength of countercultural idealism when faced with commercial temptation for corporations such as Virgin to begin selling cannabis.

Illegal drugs as a pragmatic counterweight to global trade imbalances

Illicit drugs constitute a strong revenue stream for developing countries, with relatively few exposures to Western-dominated free market competition. This is reflected in the basic economic rationale which drives farmers in developing products (hashish producers in Pakistan/Morocco, cocaine producers in Peru/Colombia/Bolivia) to favour the growing of illegal crops instead of a legal alternative. Prohibition facilitates developing country control of the market by

• ( A ) outlawing the cultivation of the raw agricultural product in Western countries (e.g., cannabis, opium),

• ( B ) adding an element of risk to supply, and consequently a premium on the product price,

• ( C ) freeing suppliers from regulatory control of the product (e.g., taxation, quality controls, tariffs and distribution quotas),

• ( D ) guaranteeing that dominant Western companies cannot step in to oligopolise the market (see oligopoly), and

• ( E ) providing a reason for employing migrant labour (traffickers/suppliers speak another language to law enforcement, and typically have strong cultural ties to the homeland).^{[citation needed]}

Experience from legal trade in comparable third world agricultural products (chocolate, coffee, pineapples, bananas) suggests that developing countries are unlikely to receive a fair share of the profits of the global demand for their domestically-grown products (see unequal exchange), and furthermore that they will be highly exposed to price fluctuations.^{[citation needed]} By removing prohibition, legalising and regulating trade, the argument is that (illegal but local) crime cartels will simply be replaced by (legal but Western) international trade cartels, with little benefit to small producers, and even less empowerment of producing countries in global trade talks. The current prohibition is thus perceived as imperfect (it attracts crime and political corruption, encourages addiction in producer countries, and offers poor ratios between farmgate prices and street sales), yet also the 'least worst' option in terms of providing immigrant employment and ensuring north-south revenue streams. However, it might be interesting to note that the production of Cannabis in Britain has shifted from 10% being homegrown, to 60% being homegrown, which would show that such economic benefits have decreased.^{[citation needed]}

Moral and religious

Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.`
For example, the Qur'an advises against the use of 'al-khamri' (intoxicants, derived from 'khamara', to cover, i.e. substances that 'cover one's mind' or 'cloud one's judgment'), saying 'in them there is a gross sin, and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.' (2:219), and that they are 'abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them, that you may succeed.'

In Judaeo-Christianity, the Bible is famously silent on drugs that are illicit today, though makes frequent mention of wine. Isaiah 5:11-12 was a key quote of the Temperance movement: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord, no respect for the work of his hands".

In Scientology, drugs are viewed as a cause of spiritual damage and bodily contamination, with addiction being an obstacle to self-fulfillment.^{[citation needed]}

In Buddhism, it is considered wrong to use drugs that lead to carelessness or heedlessness (the fifth precept of The Five Precepts).

In secular philosophy, as drug use is largely focused on individual or group leisure, drugtaking is sometimes criticised as a self-centred, non-altruistic or selfish activity, and is subject to similar moral criticism levelled at egoism and hedonism. This subject also brings up the question of how heavily morality should be legislated.^{[citation needed]}

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Eva Bertram, ed., Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial, University of California Press, 1996, ISBN 0-520-20309-7.
• James P. Gray, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs Temple University Press, 2001, ISBN 1-56639-859-2.
• Richard Lawrence Miller, Drug Warriors and Their Prey, Praeger, 1996, ISBN 0-275-95042-5.
• Don Baum, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, Little Brown & Co., 1996, ISBN 0-316-08412-3.
• Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Lawrence Hill Books, 1991, ISBN 1-55652-126-X.
• Clarence Lusane and Dennis Desmond, Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the War on Drugs, South End Press, 1991, ISBN 0-89608-411-6.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombian Survey, June 2005.
• Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, March 2004.
• "Toward a Policy on Drugs: Decriminalization? Legalization?" Currie, Elliot. Dissent. 1993. Rpt. in "Drug Use Should Be Decriminalized." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 55-64.
• "How Legalization Would Cut Crime." Duke, Steven B. Los Angeles Times. 21 Dec. 1993. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Reduce Crime." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 115-117.
• America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs. Duke, Steven B. and Albert C. Gross. New York: Putnam Books, 1993. Rpt. In "Legalizing Drugs Would Benefit the United States." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 32-48.
• Lynch, Gerald W. "Legalizing Drugs Is Not the Solution." America 13 Feb. 1993. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Not Reduce Crime." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 110-113.
• McGrath, Matt. "Economic Considerations on the Legalization of Cannabis." Tufts 13 Dec. 1994. 30 July 1997. [12]. Rpt. in "Marijuana Should Be Legalized." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 112-130.
• McNeely, Jennifer. "Methadone Maintenance Treatment." Lindesmith Center 1997. Rpt. in "Methadone Is an Effective Treatment for Heroin Addiction." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 91-95.
• McWilliams, Peter. Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. Los Angeles, CA. : Prelude Press, 1996 (full text)

External links

• Re-thinking drug control policy - Historical perspectives and conceptual tools by Peter Cohen
• Should cannabis be taxed and regulated? (journal article)
• Learning from history: a review of David Bewley-Taylor’s The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997 (journal article)
• Shifting the main purposes of drug control: from suppression to regulation of use
• Setting goals for drug policy: harm or use reduction?
• The Economics of Drug Legalization
• Drug War Facts
• Frontline: drug wars by PBS
• 10 Downing Street's Strategy Unit Drugs Report
• Pulse Check: Drug Markets and Chronic Users in 25 of America's Largest Cities (January 2004)
• Illicit drug issues by country, by the CIA
• Market Size for various illegal drugs.
• Afghanistan's narcotics-fuelled insurgency Story from Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst
• The Narco News Bulletin - Reporting on the Drug War and Democracy from Latin America
• Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy Full text of major government commission reports on the drug laws from around the world over the last 100 years
• Historical Research on the Drug War Full text of numerous full histories of the drug war and thousands of original historical documents
• National Drug Threat Assessment 2006 from the United States Department of Justice

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Illegal_drug_trade  ^history
• Prohibition_(drugs)  ^history
• Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition  ^history
• War_on_Drugs  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Drug trafficking"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.