To the editor,

I get frustrated easily. The reason I generally donot read the paper is because I tire of the ceaseless back and forth banter,arguing over problems whose solutions are painfully obvious to me. Yes, I amaware that I’m an arrogant asshole, but if a man does not think himself abovethe mindless drivel which pours out of our presses in this day in age, I do notthink he has very much at all. In David Blankenhorn’s “Protecting Marriage toProtect Children” he makes the case that a ban on gay marriage is necessary toprotect the future generations of Americans. I am completely dumbfounded thatit could be unlawful, criminal even, for two people to wed. The Supreme Courtlong ago ruled in favor of equality in freedom and opportunity, (something calledthe civil rights movement, you may have heard of it.) Yet somehow it is stillnot clear to all Americans that there is no legal basis for granting rights toa certain group of people and not others.

I shall outline a few basic arguments against gay marriagein David Blankenhorn’s piece, and attempt to demonstrate why they arecompletely absurd.

Marriage is a license to have children (Blankenhorn1).

Oops. You don’t need this “license” to have kids; asof 2006 there are twelve point nine million households being led by a singleparent, according to the US census bureau (Families and living arrangements2006). Clearly, there is no such thing as a license to have children. How canyou say that a one night stand which results in a child being raised by a singlemother is more legitimate than a child being raised by a married gay couple,yet how can you deny these people the right to reproduce and raise the childrenof their loins? Furthermore, gay couples could provide shelter and raise thechildren whose biological parents either can’t, or won’t, take proper care ofthem.

“Every child being raised by gay or lesbian coupleswill be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one(Blankenhorn 2).”

I must admit, I’m perplexed by that one. Will“legalizing” gay marriage suddenly give LGBT couples the right to whiskchildren away from their biological parents in the night? Will otherwise eagerand willing parents throw up their arms, drop their babies, and declare “What’sthe use anymore!? It’s all meaningless now, why don’t we just let our childrenbe raised by some fucking queers or something!?” I think not. Few people wouldargue that the best way for a child to be raised is by their biological parentswho love each other and the child very much. Blankenhorn sets up the conflictof one of good versus good (Blankenhorn 2). On one hand the goodness of givingproper dignity to LGBT couples, and on the other, the goodness of childrenbeing raised in an ideal atmosphere. This is not the case. As I’ve alreadystated, “Legalizing” gay marriage will not take any children away from theirbiological parents and place them instead in the care of homosexuals. Rather,concerning the children, it is a conflict of good versus bad. The good ofgiving loving couples the same rights, the same opportunity, and the samedignity to marry, create a home, and raise children regardless of their sexualorientation. Versus the bad of children either being told that their parentsaren’t accepted and respected by the state, or even worse, growing up in anorphanage.

Opponents to gay marriage argue that marriage is asacred and ancient institution. They will say it is not a question of rights,but a question of definition. Marriage is between man and woman, and has beenan integral part of our society for centuries. Gay couples can be given equalrights thru civil unions, without undermining the foundation of traditionalmarriage. The doctrine of separate but equal does not work. It is impossible tosegregate between two institutions; granting a certain group entrance into oneof them, and another group to the other. There has to be a way to grantcomplete equality to all citizens without offending people’s religioussensibilities.

We have this concept in America of separating thechurch and state. It’s about time we use it. Here’s what I propose: We protectthe sanctity of marriage and the rights of LGBT by separating the two. We haveno need for a legal institution of marriage; all of the social and monetarybenefits should be made available under the umbrella term “civil union.” Thiswould no longer refer only to gay couples, but to any two people who livetogether and are mutually dependent on each other. Why should the lawdifferentiate between homo-sexual couples and hereto-sexual couples? Therecannot be rights granted only to people who fall in love with someone of theopposite sex-in fact, falling in love isn't even a requirement. Rather any twopeople who make a commitment to spend their lives together and support eachother, whether their motives are love or otherwise, should be treated the same.Let the Church define marriage, and let the government concern itself with whatis relevant to it, without encroaching upon an institution which people hold tobe sacred.

Marino Ancient & MedievalPhilosophy Professor Johnson May 2011

            Thetext of the body of his argument reads as follows:

"The first and moremanifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain,and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Nowwhatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motionexcept it is in potentialityto that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it isin act.For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reducedfrom potentialityto actuality,except by something in a state of actuality.Thus that which is actuallyhot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentiallyhot, to be actuallyhot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the samething should be at once in actualityand potentialityin the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it issimultaneously potentiallycold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way athing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that bywhich it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs beput in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be nofirst mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent moversmove only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staffmoves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover,put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

(Taken from new adventtranslation http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)

The first problem withThomas is his somewhat confusing language, therefore it must be cleared up thatwhen he speaks of something moving from potentiality to actuality he speaks interms of its being in motion, and not of simply being. That is, the potentialfor something to be in motion versus something actually being in motion. Athing’s being in a state of potentiality in one aspect of motion does notrestrict it from being actual in another aspect, as opposed to something beingin a state of potentiality for a state of being which does negate all aspectsof actuality. Also, the word potential, as he uses it does not mean simply theability to be something, but also as the opposite of actually being so.Therefore, a thing cannot be in a potential state of being hot if it is onfire, for it is actually hot-but it is potentially cold, for one could pourice-water on it. It is also unclear what Thomas means when he says “But nothingcan be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a stateof actuality.” We must remember here how Thomas uses the words potential andactual. A thing which is not hot cannot cause something to become hot, for itis not hot itself. Therefore, something which is potentially hot cannot causeitself to become actually hot, for it is not hot, and it requires something whichis actually hot to cause it to be reduced from potentiality to actuality. Thesepoints being cleared up, let's look at the actual form of his argument.

1. "It is certain, andevident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."

2. Things move when potentialmotion becomes actual motion.

3. "But nothing can bereduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state ofactuality."

4." Now it is not possiblethat the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the samerespect.."

5."It is thereforeimpossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be bothmover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself."

6."Therefore, whatever isin motion must be put in motion by another."

7.Every moving thing must bemoved by a prior moving thing, which was moved by a prior moving thing,"But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no firstmover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers moveonly inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover."

8."Therefore it isnecessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and thiseveryone understands to be God."

            Ignoringthe irrationality of having the foundation of a logical proof of God's existencerest on our notedly flawed sensory perception, Thomas’ arguments rely heavilyon inductive reasoning. He argues that all things must be caused to move by aseparate moving thing(3) and that there can be no thing which moves itself(5).While these claims seem intuitively true, and indeed agree with ourexperiences, they are not logically sound. Simply because we do not observethings to move themselves, it does not follow that they cannot. In fact, Thomaslater contradicts this premise, stating that there is such a being as anunmoved mover. Why then, are we justified in believeing that there are not manyunmoved movers, constantly acting internally on themselves in way unbeknownstto us?

            However,even if you accept the testimony of your senses, and conclusions based onlimited experience, you have only up to step six. In premise seven, Thomasclaims to prove the first mover by pointing to the impossibility of an infiniteregress. However, it is equally implausible to our thinking that there be anunmoved mover as an infinite regress. Furthermore, Thomas relies on circularlogic to prove an unmoved mover by citing the impossibility of an infiniteregress, which is impossible “because then there would be no first (unmoved)mover.”

Failing to prove an unmovedmover, Thomas then claims that this unmoved mover is God. Even if we are tobelieve that there is only one unmoved mover, why must this being beall-powerful, absolutely good and eternal?

            Thomas’argument is filled with specious reasoning, and cannot stand as a logical proofof God’s existence. What Thomas really proves here is the inadequacy of thistechnique, and the impossibility of producing a logical proof for an infinitebeing that defies logic.

Marino Ancient & MedievalPhilosophy Professor Johnson May 2011

            Thetext of the body of his argument reads as follows:

"The first and moremanifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain,and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Nowwhatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motionexcept it is in potentialityto that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it isin act.For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reducedfrom potentialityto actuality,except by something in a state of actuality.Thus that which is actuallyhot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentiallyhot, to be actuallyhot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the samething should be at once in actualityand potentialityin the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it issimultaneously potentiallycold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way athing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that bywhich it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs beput in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be nofirst mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent moversmove only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staffmoves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover,put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

(Taken from new adventtranslation http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)

The first problem withThomas is his somewhat confusing language, therefore it must be cleared up thatwhen he speaks of something moving from potentiality to actuality he speaks interms of its being in motion, and not of simply being. That is, the potentialfor something to be in motion versus something actually being in motion. Athing’s being in a state of potentiality in one aspect of motion does notrestrict it from being actual in another aspect, as opposed to something beingin a state of potentiality for a state of being which does negate all aspectsof actuality. Also, the word potential, as he uses it does not mean simply theability to be something, but also as the opposite of actually being so.Therefore, a thing cannot be in a potential state of being hot if it is onfire, for it is actually hot-but it is potentially cold, for one could pourice-water on it. It is also unclear what Thomas means when he says “But nothingcan be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a stateof actuality.” We must remember here how Thomas uses the words potential andactual. A thing which is not hot cannot cause something to become hot, for itis not hot itself. Therefore, something which is potentially hot cannot causeitself to become actually hot, for it is not hot, and it requires something whichis actually hot to cause it to be reduced from potentiality to actuality. Thesepoints being cleared up, let's look at the actual form of his argument.

1. "It is certain, andevident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."

2. Things move when potentialmotion becomes actual motion.

3. "But nothing can bereduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state ofactuality."

4." Now it is not possiblethat the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the samerespect.."

5."It is thereforeimpossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be bothmover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself."

6."Therefore, whatever isin motion must be put in motion by another."

7.Every moving thing must bemoved by a prior moving thing, which was moved by a prior moving thing,"But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no firstmover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers moveonly inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover."

8."Therefore it isnecessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and thiseveryone understands to be God."

            Ignoringthe irrationality of having the foundation of a logical proof of God's existencerest on our notedly flawed sensory perception, Thomas’ arguments rely heavilyon inductive reasoning. He argues that all things must be caused to move by aseparate moving thing(3) and that there can be no thing which moves itself(5).While these claims seem intuitively true, and indeed agree with ourexperiences, they are not logically sound. Simply because we do not observethings to move themselves, it does not follow that they cannot. In fact, Thomaslater contradicts this premise, stating that there is such a being as anunmoved mover. Why then, are we justified in believeing that there are not manyunmoved movers, constantly acting internally on themselves in way unbeknownstto us?

            However,even if you accept the testimony of your senses, and conclusions based onlimited experience, you have only up to step six. In premise seven, Thomasclaims to prove the first mover by pointing to the impossibility of an infiniteregress. However, it is equally implausible to our thinking that there be anunmoved mover as an infinite regress. Furthermore, Thomas relies on circularlogic to prove an unmoved mover by citing the impossibility of an infiniteregress, which is impossible “because then there would be no first (unmoved)mover.”

Failing to prove an unmovedmover, Thomas then claims that this unmoved mover is God. Even if we are tobelieve that there is only one unmoved mover, why must this being beall-powerful, absolutely good and eternal?

            Thomas’argument is filled with specious reasoning, and cannot stand as a logical proofof God’s existence. What Thomas really proves here is the inadequacy of thistechnique, and the impossibility of producing a logical proof for an infinitebeing that defies logic.

On prohibition.

            America touts itself as the land of the free. The Declaration of Independence guarantees all citizens the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The freedom to decide what goes into one’s body is an essential right of any free person, and is clearly guaranteed by the US Constitution. In accordance with this view, I argue that all drugs should be legalized or decriminalized, as the government does not have the authority to determine which states of mind citizens may enter, or to restrict the pursuit of happiness of any person who neither harms nor transgresses against anyone but themselves.

            In the 1920s, an amendment was added to the US Constitution prohibiting alcohol. Not only did that bill fail to decrease alcohol consumption, but it created a black market where violent criminals thrived. Additionally, because drinks were made by bootleggers and “bathtub brewers,” some of the product was toxic, and many people died from drinking “bathtub gin.” Alcohol prohibition was overturned, and the black market and street violence it spawned disappeared with it.

            Similarly, the current war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition has been unsuccessful at limiting drug use and availability in the United States. Every city in the US has a flourishing black market for both “hard drugs” (represented in this essay by heroin,) and “soft drugs” (represented by marijuana).

            According to “Jim,” my anonymous source who has been a heroin addict for nearly fifty years, in the early seventies, before the war on drugs began, heroin cost thirty dollars for a bag of about five percent pure heroin. Today, heroin sells for five dollars or less per bag, with purity levels up to eighty or ninety percent and can be found in every major US city(“Jim”).[1]  Supporters of the war on drugs argue that the increase in availability and purity of street heroin is due to modern methods of narcotic manufacturing and smuggling, even if this were true, it is clear that the war on drugs has had no meaningful success in its stated goal of reducing the availability of hard drugs.           

            A walk through inner city America proves that the war on drugs has failed. Drug addicts and dealers stand about on the corners, and their paraphernalia lie dirty and used on the street(“Jim” and “James’). Many claim that laissez faire tactics simply don’t work, and that it is society’s responsibility to help transform these people from dangerous criminals to healthy, productive individuals. Prohibition cannot stop the drug trade. Addicts will do whatever it takes to get their fix, and there will always be risk takers ready to endanger themselves for a lucrative reward(“James”). Criminalizing drug use creates a black market for violent and dangerous criminals, and does not stop the drug trade.

            Under current US law, heroin is a schedule I substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse, and no accepted medical uses. The most effective treatment for opiate dependence is Heroin Assisted Treatment(Pubmed 2007). Heroin Assisted Treatments currently operate in Switzerland, Germany, The UK, Denmark, and The Netherlands. Under these programs, addicts can receive daily doses of heroin if they comply with the set standards. They have been shown to be highly effective, not only in rehabilitating addicts, but in preventing nonusers from becoming addicts. A majority of heroin addicts on the program have cleaned themselves up, desisted from criminal activities, and gotten themselves homes(Uchtenhagen. 2002). Some even started families after years of drug abuse and homelessness. Prohibitionists are outraged by the idea of paying for junkies to shoot up, but HAT supporters argue that it offers great benefits to those affected by drug addiction, at a fraction of the cost we currently pay to imprison non-violent criminals who harm only themselves(Pubmed 2002). In addition, Heroin Assisted Treatment can be offered to long-term users with a fee. Since they are already buying the drug, this would give them a way to more safely use without supporting the black market and dealing with criminals who can cut the drug with any substance.

            Another objection to Heroin Assisted Treatment is that it is seen as legitimizing heroin use. Critics argue that decriminalizing it gives children the impression that it is acceptable(Statement on “Harm Reduction” Strategies). This is not the case. Hard drug use has decreased in countries with Heroin Assisted Treatment, children in those countries have highly negative views of hard drugs such as heroin(Nordt and Stohler 2006), and these countries have lower percentages of their population using illicit drugs, not only than before these Harm Reduction policies, but even lower than the US today[2](Lap) .Furthermore, the US already has programs such as halfway houses and needle exchange programs which were protested for the exact same reason, but have been continued because of their great success in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

            The costs of the war on drugs are great:  every year the American government spends over forty four billion dollars of taxpayer money, and imprisons a million people for violating drug laws(Grinspoon and James). The phenomenon of incarceration is so great that the private sector has taken notice. There are currently over two hundred and fifty privately run and owned prisons in America, jailing nearly a hundred thousand prisoners(Schmalleger). Proponents of private prisons argue that they are cheaper than public prisons(Blumstein), but a study released  by the US Bureau of justice statistics as well as several other studies found that private prisons are just as costly as public prisons, if not even more expensive(The Sentencing Project). Furthermore, private prisons cut costs by refusing expensive prisoners and sacrificing security. Lower staff levels in private prisons result in more escapes, and roughly fifty percent more incidences of violence within the prisons(The Sentencing Project). These prisons also do little in terms of rehabilitating prisoners, since a rehabilitated prisoner is of no use to a for-profit prison. The cost to tax payers is enormous: not only must they pay for prisoners’ food and necessities, they must pay for the upkeep of prison facilities which are less safe, and the prisons’ owners profit on top of that! Even worse, these private prisons fund lobbyists to fight for harsher drug laws, and longer sentences(The Sentencing Project). There was even a scandal in Pennsylvania where a private prison company paid millions of dollars to judges to send minor to the prisons they operated(Monbiot).

            The war on drugs has vast consequences on our foreign policy. The illegal drug trade in the US, especially along the (southern) border states funds the Mexican Cartels whose violent clashes with each other and Mexican Authorities claim thousands of lives(Robinson). The United States sponsors the spraying of herbicides over South and Central America in attempts to kill cocoa and poppy crops. These chemicals are highly toxic, and destroy legitimate crops which are the only form of income for many farmers(Bingwood). Additionally, the toxic chemicals are detrimental to fragile tropical ecosystems, as well as the health of the people living in these areas(Bingwood).

            Heroin is a semi-synthetic drug derived from opium. The largest producer of opium in the world is Afghanistan. Over ninety percent of illicit opium in the world originates in Afghanistan, where poppies are the main cash crop a poor farmer can grow(UN Office of Drugs and Crime “The Opium Economy in Afghanistan). Under Taliban rule, the opium trade flourished, reaching its peak in nineteen ninety nine until the Taliban banned poppy cultivation(UN Poppy Survey 2001). However, when the US invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban, poppy cultivation returned to pre-ban levels(Glaze). Today, the estimated export value of Afghani opium is over sixty billion dollars. Although US policy is decidedly counter-narcotic, the military can do little do fight opium production, as the warlords we align ourselves with to fight the Taliban control the opium trade(Schweich). If the US decriminalized heroin, we could grow poppy for medical heroin domestically. What remained of the black market for heroin would stay within the borders, instead of supporting drug lords over seas.

            The war on drugs includes a strong focus on education. Marijuana, as the most widely used illegal drug, is the main focusing of advertising campaigns. Prohibitionists claim that marijuana is just as dangerous as “hard drugs,” and that it is the leading cause of teenage deaths. Furthermore, they argue that it is a gateway drug, and using it causes one to then move on to harder drugs.

            It is physically impossible to die from marijuana overdose. It is simply not that toxic(Holubek 2010). A study intended to demonstrate the lethality of marijuana succeeded in killing their test group of rats after exposing them to so much smoke that they suffered brain damage due to oxygen deprivation. The researchers were unable to produce similar results with dogs(Grotenhermen 2003). According to those findings, the average human being would have to smoke fifteen hundred pounds of weed in fifteen minutes, a feat that is completely impossible by any stretch of the imagination(Holubek 2010).

            But what of the gateway effect? While it certainly is a legitimate point that exposure to inebriating substances could result in further exploration of drugs, the first exposure to drugs for most Americans comes not from marijuana, but from alcohol. Furthermore, if the goal of the war on drugs is to eliminate the gateway effect of marijuana, it has greatly backfired.

            The demonizing of marijuana in government adverts sets pot up as a great evil; it is classified as a schedule I substance, as is heroin. (Cocaine and Methamphetamine are schedule II.) Studies show that almost fifty percent of American teenagers try marijuana by the time they graduate high school. The average teen knows many regular and occasional marijuana users, none of which have died or suffered from serious medical conditions because of cannabis. When such a teenager tries marijuana, and enjoys it, they realize that they have been misled about the true nature of the drug, and are taught to distrust information in government advertisements(Zeller). Furthermore, by criminalizing pot, users must buy from black market dealers, thus increasing their contact with other illicit substances and criminal behavior.

            The war against marijuana has another great casualty: Hemp. Hemp is a non-psychoactive species of cannabis, specifically cannabis ruderalis. A nineteen thirty-eight article published in Popular mechanics before they realized hemp was outlawed cited it as a billion dollar miracle crop(Popular Mechanics). Hemp can be used for textiles as well as ropes; it grows quickly without the use of harmful chemicals, and produces more fiber than cotton or flax. Its seeds contain all essential amino and fatty acids, as well as being a viable source of alternative fuel(Syke). The first law regarding hemp in America was a Jamestown colony law in 1619 requiring all settlers to grow cannabis, and the founding fathers cultivated hemp and sang it’s praises(The Pot Book 5). Not only is hemp an extraordinarily useful industrial crop, it's easy to grow and helps prevent soil erosion(Popular Mechanics). Hemp is, as its namesake suggests, a weed. It grows wild across North America, especially in the West and Midwest(Syke). If one were to simply buy a plot of farmland in Iowa and do nothing to it, they could be in violation of US law for the weed growing on their property.

            Marijuana is an increasingly large agricultural business. Legislature cannot stop supply and demand capitalism, and youths are unmoved by false advertisements of the dangers of cannabis. Alcohol and tobacco are respectively more deadly and addicting than marijuana, but they enjoy a legal status in the US. Marijuana and all other “soft drugs” should be legalized and taxed. Not only would this create billions of dollars in tax revenue, but it would save billions of dollars on the federal budget prosecuting and punishing non violent, otherwise law abiding citizens(Jefferey 2010). Heroin and all other “hard drugs” should be decriminalized. This would defang the black market, and lead to a decrease in street violence. Additionally, the state would be able to regulate who could buy heroin, (drug dealers don’t check ID) and how it is produced.

Drug addiction is a real problem facing many Americans. Ending prohibition will not put an end to drug addiction, nor drug trade. However, it is shown to be the case that prohibition is harmful to drug addicts, and the country at large. Additionally, the war on drugs benefits those who the war is supposedly fighting against (drug dealers and cartels). It is not possible to eradicate drugs, or the black market, but it is however the responsibility of the state to reduce the damage they inflict on society, and to respect the rights of citizens to make personal choices.

            Who benefits from prohibition? Organized crime profits from an inflated black market. Private prison companies profit from the creation of millions of criminals. Afghani warlords profit from a crop that costs nearly nothing to produce, and has an export value of billions of dollars. Addicts do not benefit from laws that make them criminals. Taxpayers do not benefit from costly campaigns to find and imprison non-violent criminals. America does not benefit from spending billions of dollars to fight legitimate industries which could create billions of dollars in revenue. It’s time to end prohibition.

“Jim.” Personal Interview. 3 March 2011.

“James.” Personal Interview. 3 March 2011.

United States. National Institutes of Health. United States National Library of Medicine. Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence: randomised controlled trial. By Haasen C, Verthein U, Degkwitz P, Berger J, Krausz M, Naber D. 2007. Pubmed. 8 March 2011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17602126

Canada. 37^th Parliament-First Session. Committee on Illegal Drugs. Heroin Assisted Treatment for Opiate Addicts – The Swiss Experience. By Ambros Uchtenhagen. 2002. Parl.Gc.Ca. 8 March 2011 http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/ucht-e.htm#TOP

ijkgraaf, Marcel G W, Zanden, Bart P van der. “Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with

methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two

randomised trials.” 2 June 2005: BMJ. 8 March 2011 http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1297.abstract?sid=846a6b1e-3ee6-4bf5-b8c8-2411de3d8661

United Nations. International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy. STATEMENT ON SO-CALLED `HARM REDUCTION´ POLICIES.  2005 http://www.itfsdp.org/pdfs/hrstatementbrussels.pdf

Nordt, Carlos, and Rudolf, Stohler, "Incidence of Heroin Use in Zurich, Switzerland: A Treatment Case Register Analysis."

The Lancet 367 (2006): 830.

Grotenhermen, F. “Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Cannabinoids.” Clinical Pharmacokinetics 42 (2003): 327-60

Holland, Julie, eds. The Pot Book: A complete guide to cannabis. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 2010

            Holubek, William. “Medical Risk and Toxicology.” 141-152

            Lap, Mario. “Dutch Drug Policy.” 441-446

            Miron, Jefferey. “A Cost Benefit Analysis of Legalizing Marijuana.” 447-453

Grinspoon, Lester, and Balkalar, James, "The Way on Drugs- A Peace Proposal." New England Journal of Medicine. 330 (February 3, 1994)357–360.

 Debusmann, Bernd. "Einstein, Insanity and the War on Drugs." Reuters 3 Dec. 2008. 29 Apr. 2011

Cheung, Amy. "Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration." The Sentencing Project. Sep. 2004. 19 Apr. 2011.

Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2007, 2005, 2002). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Monbiot, George. "This revolting trade in human lives is an incentive to lock people up." The Guardian. 3 Mar. 2009. 29 Apr. 2011.

Bingwood, Jeremy. "Toxic Drift: Monsanto and the Drug War in Columbia." CorpWatch. 21 June 2001. 29 Apr. 2011.

UNITED NATIONS Office on Drugs and Crime. Afghanistan Opium Survey 2007. 29 Apr. 2011

UNITED NATIONS Office on Drugs and Crime. The Opium Economy in Afghanistan. 29 Apr. 2011<Thttp://www.unodc.org//pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf>

UNITED NATIONS International Drug Control Programme. Annual Opium Poppy Survey 2001. 29 Apr. 2011

United States. Department of Defense. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Opium and Afghanistan: Reassessing U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy. By John Glaze 2007. 29 Apr. 2011

Syke, Dan. "Where the Wild Hemp Grows."  High Times. 30 Oct. 2008. 29 Apr. 2011.

On prohibition.

            America touts itself as the land of the free. The Declaration of Independence guarantees all citizens the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The freedom to decide what goes into one’s body is an essential right of any free person, and is clearly guaranteed by the US Constitution. In accordance with this view, I argue that all drugs should be legalized or decriminalized, as the government does not have the authority to determine which states of mind citizens may enter, or to restrict the pursuit of happiness of any person who neither harms nor transgresses against anyone but themselves.

            In the 1920s, an amendment was added to the US Constitution prohibiting alcohol. Not only did that bill fail to decrease alcohol consumption, but it created a black market where violent criminals thrived. Additionally, because drinks were made by bootleggers and “bathtub brewers,” some of the product was toxic, and many people died from drinking “bathtub gin.” Alcohol prohibition was overturned, and the black market and street violence it spawned disappeared with it.

            Similarly, the current war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition has been unsuccessful at limiting drug use and availability in the United States. Every city in the US has a flourishing black market for both “hard drugs” (represented in this essay by heroin,) and “soft drugs” (represented by marijuana).

            According to “Jim,” my anonymous source who has been a heroin addict for nearly fifty years, in the early seventies, before the war on drugs began, heroin cost thirty dollars for a bag of about five percent pure heroin. Today, heroin sells for five dollars or less per bag, with purity levels up to eighty or ninety percent and can be found in every major US city(“Jim”).[1]  Supporters of the war on drugs argue that the increase in availability and purity of street heroin is due to modern methods of narcotic manufacturing and smuggling, even if this were true, it is clear that the war on drugs has had no meaningful success in its stated goal of reducing the availability of hard drugs.           

            A walk through inner city America proves that the war on drugs has failed. Drug addicts and dealers stand about on the corners, and their paraphernalia lie dirty and used on the street(“Jim” and “James’). Many claim that laissez faire tactics simply don’t work, and that it is society’s responsibility to help transform these people from dangerous criminals to healthy, productive individuals. Prohibition cannot stop the drug trade. Addicts will do whatever it takes to get their fix, and there will always be risk takers ready to endanger themselves for a lucrative reward(“James”). Criminalizing drug use creates a black market for violent and dangerous criminals, and does not stop the drug trade.

            Under current US law, heroin is a schedule I substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse, and no accepted medical uses. The most effective treatment for opiate dependence is Heroin Assisted Treatment(Pubmed 2007). Heroin Assisted Treatments currently operate in Switzerland, Germany, The UK, Denmark, and The Netherlands. Under these programs, addicts can receive daily doses of heroin if they comply with the set standards. They have been shown to be highly effective, not only in rehabilitating addicts, but in preventing nonusers from becoming addicts. A majority of heroin addicts on the program have cleaned themselves up, desisted from criminal activities, and gotten themselves homes(Uchtenhagen. 2002). Some even started families after years of drug abuse and homelessness. Prohibitionists are outraged by the idea of paying for junkies to shoot up, but HAT supporters argue that it offers great benefits to those affected by drug addiction, at a fraction of the cost we currently pay to imprison non-violent criminals who harm only themselves(Pubmed 2002). In addition, Heroin Assisted Treatment can be offered to long-term users with a fee. Since they are already buying the drug, this would give them a way to more safely use without supporting the black market and dealing with criminals who can cut the drug with any substance.

            Another objection to Heroin Assisted Treatment is that it is seen as legitimizing heroin use. Critics argue that decriminalizing it gives children the impression that it is acceptable(Statement on “Harm Reduction” Strategies). This is not the case. Hard drug use has decreased in countries with Heroin Assisted Treatment, children in those countries have highly negative views of hard drugs such as heroin(Nordt and Stohler 2006), and these countries have lower percentages of their population using illicit drugs, not only than before these Harm Reduction policies, but even lower than the US today[2](Lap) .Furthermore, the US already has programs such as halfway houses and needle exchange programs which were protested for the exact same reason, but have been continued because of their great success in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

            The costs of the war on drugs are great:  every year the American government spends over forty four billion dollars of taxpayer money, and imprisons a million people for violating drug laws(Grinspoon and James). The phenomenon of incarceration is so great that the private sector has taken notice. There are currently over two hundred and fifty privately run and owned prisons in America, jailing nearly a hundred thousand prisoners(Schmalleger). Proponents of private prisons argue that they are cheaper than public prisons(Blumstein), but a study released  by the US Bureau of justice statistics as well as several other studies found that private prisons are just as costly as public prisons, if not even more expensive(The Sentencing Project). Furthermore, private prisons cut costs by refusing expensive prisoners and sacrificing security. Lower staff levels in private prisons result in more escapes, and roughly fifty percent more incidences of violence within the prisons(The Sentencing Project). These prisons also do little in terms of rehabilitating prisoners, since a rehabilitated prisoner is of no use to a for-profit prison. The cost to tax payers is enormous: not only must they pay for prisoners’ food and necessities, they must pay for the upkeep of prison facilities which are less safe, and the prisons’ owners profit on top of that! Even worse, these private prisons fund lobbyists to fight for harsher drug laws, and longer sentences(The Sentencing Project). There was even a scandal in Pennsylvania where a private prison company paid millions of dollars to judges to send minor to the prisons they operated(Monbiot).

            The war on drugs has vast consequences on our foreign policy. The illegal drug trade in the US, especially along the (southern) border states funds the Mexican Cartels whose violent clashes with each other and Mexican Authorities claim thousands of lives(Robinson). The United States sponsors the spraying of herbicides over South and Central America in attempts to kill cocoa and poppy crops. These chemicals are highly toxic, and destroy legitimate crops which are the only form of income for many farmers(Bingwood). Additionally, the toxic chemicals are detrimental to fragile tropical ecosystems, as well as the health of the people living in these areas(Bingwood).

            Heroin is a semi-synthetic drug derived from opium. The largest producer of opium in the world is Afghanistan. Over ninety percent of illicit opium in the world originates in Afghanistan, where poppies are the main cash crop a poor farmer can grow(UN Office of Drugs and Crime “The Opium Economy in Afghanistan). Under Taliban rule, the opium trade flourished, reaching its peak in nineteen ninety nine until the Taliban banned poppy cultivation(UN Poppy Survey 2001). However, when the US invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban, poppy cultivation returned to pre-ban levels(Glaze). Today, the estimated export value of Afghani opium is over sixty billion dollars. Although US policy is decidedly counter-narcotic, the military can do little do fight opium production, as the warlords we align ourselves with to fight the Taliban control the opium trade(Schweich). If the US decriminalized heroin, we could grow poppy for medical heroin domestically. What remained of the black market for heroin would stay within the borders, instead of supporting drug lords over seas.

            The war on drugs includes a strong focus on education. Marijuana, as the most widely used illegal drug, is the main focusing of advertising campaigns. Prohibitionists claim that marijuana is just as dangerous as “hard drugs,” and that it is the leading cause of teenage deaths. Furthermore, they argue that it is a gateway drug, and using it causes one to then move on to harder drugs.

            It is physically impossible to die from marijuana overdose. It is simply not that toxic(Holubek 2010). A study intended to demonstrate the lethality of marijuana succeeded in killing their test group of rats after exposing them to so much smoke that they suffered brain damage due to oxygen deprivation. The researchers were unable to produce similar results with dogs(Grotenhermen 2003). According to those findings, the average human being would have to smoke fifteen hundred pounds of weed in fifteen minutes, a feat that is completely impossible by any stretch of the imagination(Holubek 2010).

            But what of the gateway effect? While it certainly is a legitimate point that exposure to inebriating substances could result in further exploration of drugs, the first exposure to drugs for most Americans comes not from marijuana, but from alcohol. Furthermore, if the goal of the war on drugs is to eliminate the gateway effect of marijuana, it has greatly backfired.

            The demonizing of marijuana in government adverts sets pot up as a great evil; it is classified as a schedule I substance, as is heroin. (Cocaine and Methamphetamine are schedule II.) Studies show that almost fifty percent of American teenagers try marijuana by the time they graduate high school. The average teen knows many regular and occasional marijuana users, none of which have died or suffered from serious medical conditions because of cannabis. When such a teenager tries marijuana, and enjoys it, they realize that they have been misled about the true nature of the drug, and are taught to distrust information in government advertisements(Zeller). Furthermore, by criminalizing pot, users must buy from black market dealers, thus increasing their contact with other illicit substances and criminal behavior.

            The war against marijuana has another great casualty: Hemp. Hemp is a non-psychoactive species of cannabis, specifically cannabis ruderalis. A nineteen thirty-eight article published in Popular mechanics before they realized hemp was outlawed cited it as a billion dollar miracle crop(Popular Mechanics). Hemp can be used for textiles as well as ropes; it grows quickly without the use of harmful chemicals, and produces more fiber than cotton or flax. Its seeds contain all essential amino and fatty acids, as well as being a viable source of alternative fuel(Syke). The first law regarding hemp in America was a Jamestown colony law in 1619 requiring all settlers to grow cannabis, and the founding fathers cultivated hemp and sang it’s praises(The Pot Book 5). Not only is hemp an extraordinarily useful industrial crop, it's easy to grow and helps prevent soil erosion(Popular Mechanics). Hemp is, as its namesake suggests, a weed. It grows wild across North America, especially in the West and Midwest(Syke). If one were to simply buy a plot of farmland in Iowa and do nothing to it, they could be in violation of US law for the weed growing on their property.

            Marijuana is an increasingly large agricultural business. Legislature cannot stop supply and demand capitalism, and youths are unmoved by false advertisements of the dangers of cannabis. Alcohol and tobacco are respectively more deadly and addicting than marijuana, but they enjoy a legal status in the US. Marijuana and all other “soft drugs” should be legalized and taxed. Not only would this create billions of dollars in tax revenue, but it would save billions of dollars on the federal budget prosecuting and punishing non violent, otherwise law abiding citizens(Jefferey 2010). Heroin and all other “hard drugs” should be decriminalized. This would defang the black market, and lead to a decrease in street violence. Additionally, the state would be able to regulate who could buy heroin, (drug dealers don’t check ID) and how it is produced.

Drug addiction is a real problem facing many Americans. Ending prohibition will not put an end to drug addiction, nor drug trade. However, it is shown to be the case that prohibition is harmful to drug addicts, and the country at large. Additionally, the war on drugs benefits those who the war is supposedly fighting against (drug dealers and cartels). It is not possible to eradicate drugs, or the black market, but it is however the responsibility of the state to reduce the damage they inflict on society, and to respect the rights of citizens to make personal choices.

            Who benefits from prohibition? Organized crime profits from an inflated black market. Private prison companies profit from the creation of millions of criminals. Afghani warlords profit from a crop that costs nearly nothing to produce, and has an export value of billions of dollars. Addicts do not benefit from laws that make them criminals. Taxpayers do not benefit from costly campaigns to find and imprison non-violent criminals. America does not benefit from spending billions of dollars to fight legitimate industries which could create billions of dollars in revenue. It’s time to end prohibition.

“Jim.” Personal Interview. 3 March 2011.

“James.” Personal Interview. 3 March 2011.

United States. National Institutes of Health. United States National Library of Medicine. Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence: randomised controlled trial. By Haasen C, Verthein U, Degkwitz P, Berger J, Krausz M, Naber D. 2007. Pubmed. 8 March 2011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17602126

Canada. 37^th Parliament-First Session. Committee on Illegal Drugs. Heroin Assisted Treatment for Opiate Addicts – The Swiss Experience. By Ambros Uchtenhagen. 2002. Parl.Gc.Ca. 8 March 2011 http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/ucht-e.htm#TOP

ijkgraaf, Marcel G W, Zanden, Bart P van der. “Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with

methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two

randomised trials.” 2 June 2005: BMJ. 8 March 2011 http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1297.abstract?sid=846a6b1e-3ee6-4bf5-b8c8-2411de3d8661

United Nations. International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy. STATEMENT ON SO-CALLED `HARM REDUCTION´ POLICIES.  2005 http://www.itfsdp.org/pdfs/hrstatementbrussels.pdf

Nordt, Carlos, and Rudolf, Stohler, "Incidence of Heroin Use in Zurich, Switzerland: A Treatment Case Register Analysis."

The Lancet 367 (2006): 830.

Grotenhermen, F. “Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Cannabinoids.” Clinical Pharmacokinetics 42 (2003): 327-60

Holland, Julie, eds. The Pot Book: A complete guide to cannabis. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 2010

            Holubek, William. “Medical Risk and Toxicology.” 141-152

            Lap, Mario. “Dutch Drug Policy.” 441-446

            Miron, Jefferey. “A Cost Benefit Analysis of Legalizing Marijuana.” 447-453

Grinspoon, Lester, and Balkalar, James, "The Way on Drugs- A Peace Proposal." New England Journal of Medicine. 330 (February 3, 1994)357–360.

 Debusmann, Bernd. "Einstein, Insanity and the War on Drugs." Reuters 3 Dec. 2008. 29 Apr. 2011

Cheung, Amy. "Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration." The Sentencing Project. Sep. 2004. 19 Apr. 2011.

Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2007, 2005, 2002). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Monbiot, George. "This revolting trade in human lives is an incentive to lock people up." The Guardian. 3 Mar. 2009. 29 Apr. 2011.

Bingwood, Jeremy. "Toxic Drift: Monsanto and the Drug War in Columbia." CorpWatch. 21 June 2001. 29 Apr. 2011.

UNITED NATIONS Office on Drugs and Crime. Afghanistan Opium Survey 2007. 29 Apr. 2011

UNITED NATIONS Office on Drugs and Crime. The Opium Economy in Afghanistan. 29 Apr. 2011<Thttp://www.unodc.org//pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf>

UNITED NATIONS International Drug Control Programme. Annual Opium Poppy Survey 2001. 29 Apr. 2011

United States. Department of Defense. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Opium and Afghanistan: Reassessing U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy. By John Glaze 2007. 29 Apr. 2011

Syke, Dan. "Where the Wild Hemp Grows."  High Times. 30 Oct. 2008. 29 Apr. 2011.

On prohibition.

            America touts itself as the land of the free. The Declaration of Independence guarantees all citizens the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The freedom to decide what goes into one’s body is an essential right of any free person, and is clearly guaranteed by the US Constitution. In accordance with this view, I argue that all drugs should be legalized or decriminalized, as the government does not have the authority to determine which states of mind citizens may enter, or to restrict the pursuit of happiness of any person who neither harms nor transgresses against anyone but themselves.

            In the 1920s, an amendment was added to the US Constitution prohibiting alcohol. Not only did that bill fail to decrease alcohol consumption, but it created a black market where violent criminals thrived. Additionally, because drinks were made by bootleggers and “bathtub brewers,” some of the product was toxic, and many people died from drinking “bathtub gin.” Alcohol prohibition was overturned, and the black market and street violence it spawned disappeared with it.

            Similarly, the current war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition has been unsuccessful at limiting drug use and availability in the United States. Every city in the US has a flourishing black market for both “hard drugs” (represented in this essay by heroin,) and “soft drugs” (represented by marijuana).

            According to “Jim,” my anonymous source who has been a heroin addict for nearly fifty years, in the early seventies, before the war on drugs began, heroin cost thirty dollars for a bag of about five percent pure heroin. Today, heroin sells for five dollars or less per bag, with purity levels up to eighty or ninety percent and can be found in every major US city(“Jim”).[1]  Supporters of the war on drugs argue that the increase in availability and purity of street heroin is due to modern methods of narcotic manufacturing and smuggling, even if this were true, it is clear that the war on drugs has had no meaningful success in its stated goal of reducing the availability of hard drugs.           

            A walk through inner city America proves that the war on drugs has failed. Drug addicts and dealers stand about on the corners, and their paraphernalia lie dirty and used on the street(“Jim” and “James’). Many claim that laissez faire tactics simply don’t work, and that it is society’s responsibility to help transform these people from dangerous criminals to healthy, productive individuals. Prohibition cannot stop the drug trade. Addicts will do whatever it takes to get their fix, and there will always be risk takers ready to endanger themselves for a lucrative reward(“James”). Criminalizing drug use creates a black market for violent and dangerous criminals, and does not stop the drug trade.

            Under current US law, heroin is a schedule I substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse, and no accepted medical uses. The most effective treatment for opiate dependence is Heroin Assisted Treatment(Pubmed 2007). Heroin Assisted Treatments currently operate in Switzerland, Germany, The UK, Denmark, and The Netherlands. Under these programs, addicts can receive daily doses of heroin if they comply with the set standards. They have been shown to be highly effective, not only in rehabilitating addicts, but in preventing nonusers from becoming addicts. A majority of heroin addicts on the program have cleaned themselves up, desisted from criminal activities, and gotten themselves homes(Uchtenhagen. 2002). Some even started families after years of drug abuse and homelessness. Prohibitionists are outraged by the idea of paying for junkies to shoot up, but HAT supporters argue that it offers great benefits to those affected by drug addiction, at a fraction of the cost we currently pay to imprison non-violent criminals who harm only themselves(Pubmed 2002). In addition, Heroin Assisted Treatment can be offered to long-term users with a fee. Since they are already buying the drug, this would give them a way to more safely use without supporting the black market and dealing with criminals who can cut the drug with any substance.

            Another objection to Heroin Assisted Treatment is that it is seen as legitimizing heroin use. Critics argue that decriminalizing it gives children the impression that it is acceptable(Statement on “Harm Reduction” Strategies). This is not the case. Hard drug use has decreased in countries with Heroin Assisted Treatment, children in those countries have highly negative views of hard drugs such as heroin(Nordt and Stohler 2006), and these countries have lower percentages of their population using illicit drugs, not only than before these Harm Reduction policies, but even lower than the US today[2](Lap) .Furthermore, the US already has programs such as halfway houses and needle exchange programs which were protested for the exact same reason, but have been continued because of their great success in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

            The costs of the war on drugs are great:  every year the American government spends over forty four billion dollars of taxpayer money, and imprisons a million people for violating drug laws(Grinspoon and James). The phenomenon of incarceration is so great that the private sector has taken notice. There are currently over two hundred and fifty privately run and owned prisons in America, jailing nearly a hundred thousand prisoners(Schmalleger). Proponents of private prisons argue that they are cheaper than public prisons(Blumstein), but a study released  by the US Bureau of justice statistics as well as several other studies found that private prisons are just as costly as public prisons, if not even more expensive(The Sentencing Project). Furthermore, private prisons cut costs by refusing expensive prisoners and sacrificing security. Lower staff levels in private prisons result in more escapes, and roughly fifty percent more incidences of violence within the prisons(The Sentencing Project). These prisons also do little in terms of rehabilitating prisoners, since a rehabilitated prisoner is of no use to a for-profit prison. The cost to tax payers is enormous: not only must they pay for prisoners’ food and necessities, they must pay for the upkeep of prison facilities which are less safe, and the prisons’ owners profit on top of that! Even worse, these private prisons fund lobbyists to fight for harsher drug laws, and longer sentences(The Sentencing Project). There was even a scandal in Pennsylvania where a private prison company paid millions of dollars to judges to send minor to the prisons they operated(Monbiot).

            The war on drugs has vast consequences on our foreign policy. The illegal drug trade in the US, especially along the (southern) border states funds the Mexican Cartels whose violent clashes with each other and Mexican Authorities claim thousands of lives(Robinson). The United States sponsors the spraying of herbicides over South and Central America in attempts to kill cocoa and poppy crops. These chemicals are highly toxic, and destroy legitimate crops which are the only form of income for many farmers(Bingwood). Additionally, the toxic chemicals are detrimental to fragile tropical ecosystems, as well as the health of the people living in these areas(Bingwood).

            Heroin is a semi-synthetic drug derived from opium. The largest producer of opium in the world is Afghanistan. Over ninety percent of illicit opium in the world originates in Afghanistan, where poppies are the main cash crop a poor farmer can grow(UN Office of Drugs and Crime “The Opium Economy in Afghanistan). Under Taliban rule, the opium trade flourished, reaching its peak in nineteen ninety nine until the Taliban banned poppy cultivation(UN Poppy Survey 2001). However, when the US invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban, poppy cultivation returned to pre-ban levels(Glaze). Today, the estimated export value of Afghani opium is over sixty billion dollars. Although US policy is decidedly counter-narcotic, the military can do little do fight opium production, as the warlords we align ourselves with to fight the Taliban control the opium trade(Schweich). If the US decriminalized heroin, we could grow poppy for medical heroin domestically. What remained of the black market for heroin would stay within the borders, instead of supporting drug lords over seas.

            The war on drugs includes a strong focus on education. Marijuana, as the most widely used illegal drug, is the main focusing of advertising campaigns. Prohibitionists claim that marijuana is just as dangerous as “hard drugs,” and that it is the leading cause of teenage deaths. Furthermore, they argue that it is a gateway drug, and using it causes one to then move on to harder drugs.

            It is physically impossible to die from marijuana overdose. It is simply not that toxic(Holubek 2010). A study intended to demonstrate the lethality of marijuana succeeded in killing their test group of rats after exposing them to so much smoke that they suffered brain damage due to oxygen deprivation. The researchers were unable to produce similar results with dogs(Grotenhermen 2003). According to those findings, the average human being would have to smoke fifteen hundred pounds of weed in fifteen minutes, a feat that is completely impossible by any stretch of the imagination(Holubek 2010).

            But what of the gateway effect? While it certainly is a legitimate point that exposure to inebriating substances could result in further exploration of drugs, the first exposure to drugs for most Americans comes not from marijuana, but from alcohol. Furthermore, if the goal of the war on drugs is to eliminate the gateway effect of marijuana, it has greatly backfired.

            The demonizing of marijuana in government adverts sets pot up as a great evil; it is classified as a schedule I substance, as is heroin. (Cocaine and Methamphetamine are schedule II.) Studies show that almost fifty percent of American teenagers try marijuana by the time they graduate high school. The average teen knows many regular and occasional marijuana users, none of which have died or suffered from serious medical conditions because of cannabis. When such a teenager tries marijuana, and enjoys it, they realize that they have been misled about the true nature of the drug, and are taught to distrust information in government advertisements(Zeller). Furthermore, by criminalizing pot, users must buy from black market dealers, thus increasing their contact with other illicit substances and criminal behavior.

            The war against marijuana has another great casualty: Hemp. Hemp is a non-psychoactive species of cannabis, specifically cannabis ruderalis. A nineteen thirty-eight article published in Popular mechanics before they realized hemp was outlawed cited it as a billion dollar miracle crop(Popular Mechanics). Hemp can be used for textiles as well as ropes; it grows quickly without the use of harmful chemicals, and produces more fiber than cotton or flax. Its seeds contain all essential amino and fatty acids, as well as being a viable source of alternative fuel(Syke). The first law regarding hemp in America was a Jamestown colony law in 1619 requiring all settlers to grow cannabis, and the founding fathers cultivated hemp and sang it’s praises(The Pot Book 5). Not only is hemp an extraordinarily useful industrial crop, it's easy to grow and helps prevent soil erosion(Popular Mechanics). Hemp is, as its namesake suggests, a weed. It grows wild across North America, especially in the West and Midwest(Syke). If one were to simply buy a plot of farmland in Iowa and do nothing to it, they could be in violation of US law for the weed growing on their property.

            Marijuana is an increasingly large agricultural business. Legislature cannot stop supply and demand capitalism, and youths are unmoved by false advertisements of the dangers of cannabis. Alcohol and tobacco are respectively more deadly and addicting than marijuana, but they enjoy a legal status in the US. Marijuana and all other “soft drugs” should be legalized and taxed. Not only would this create billions of dollars in tax revenue, but it would save billions of dollars on the federal budget prosecuting and punishing non violent, otherwise law abiding citizens(Jefferey 2010). Heroin and all other “hard drugs” should be decriminalized. This would defang the black market, and lead to a decrease in street violence. Additionally, the state would be able to regulate who could buy heroin, (drug dealers don’t check ID) and how it is produced.

Drug addiction is a real problem facing many Americans. Ending prohibition will not put an end to drug addiction, nor drug trade. However, it is shown to be the case that prohibition is harmful to drug addicts, and the country at large. Additionally, the war on drugs benefits those who the war is supposedly fighting against (drug dealers and cartels). It is not possible to eradicate drugs, or the black market, but it is however the responsibility of the state to reduce the damage they inflict on society, and to respect the rights of citizens to make personal choices.

            Who benefits from prohibition? Organized crime profits from an inflated black market. Private prison companies profit from the creation of millions of criminals. Afghani warlords profit from a crop that costs nearly nothing to produce, and has an export value of billions of dollars. Addicts do not benefit from laws that make them criminals. Taxpayers do not benefit from costly campaigns to find and imprison non-violent criminals. America does not benefit from spending billions of dollars to fight legitimate industries which could create billions of dollars in revenue. It’s time to end prohibition.

“Jim.” Personal Interview. 3 March 2011.

“James.” Personal Interview. 3 March 2011.

United States. National Institutes of Health. United States National Library of Medicine. Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence: randomised controlled trial. By Haasen C, Verthein U, Degkwitz P, Berger J, Krausz M, Naber D. 2007. Pubmed. 8 March 2011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17602126

Canada. 37^th Parliament-First Session. Committee on Illegal Drugs. Heroin Assisted Treatment for Opiate Addicts – The Swiss Experience. By Ambros Uchtenhagen. 2002. Parl.Gc.Ca. 8 March 2011 http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/ucht-e.htm#TOP

ijkgraaf, Marcel G W, Zanden, Bart P van der. “Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with

methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two

randomised trials.” 2 June 2005: BMJ. 8 March 2011 http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1297.abstract?sid=846a6b1e-3ee6-4bf5-b8c8-2411de3d8661

United Nations. International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy. STATEMENT ON SO-CALLED `HARM REDUCTION´ POLICIES.  2005 http://www.itfsdp.org/pdfs/hrstatementbrussels.pdf

Nordt, Carlos, and Rudolf, Stohler, "Incidence of Heroin Use in Zurich, Switzerland: A Treatment Case Register Analysis."

The Lancet 367 (2006): 830.

Grotenhermen, F. “Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Cannabinoids.” Clinical Pharmacokinetics 42 (2003): 327-60

Holland, Julie, eds. The Pot Book: A complete guide to cannabis. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 2010

            Holubek, William. “Medical Risk and Toxicology.” 141-152

            Lap, Mario. “Dutch Drug Policy.” 441-446

            Miron, Jefferey. “A Cost Benefit Analysis of Legalizing Marijuana.” 447-453

Grinspoon, Lester, and Balkalar, James, "The Way on Drugs- A Peace Proposal." New England Journal of Medicine. 330 (February 3, 1994)357–360.

 Debusmann, Bernd. "Einstein, Insanity and the War on Drugs." Reuters 3 Dec. 2008. 29 Apr. 2011

Cheung, Amy. "Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration." The Sentencing Project. Sep. 2004. 19 Apr. 2011.

Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2007, 2005, 2002). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Monbiot, George. "This revolting trade in human lives is an incentive to lock people up." The Guardian. 3 Mar. 2009. 29 Apr. 2011.

Bingwood, Jeremy. "Toxic Drift: Monsanto and the Drug War in Columbia." CorpWatch. 21 June 2001. 29 Apr. 2011.

UNITED NATIONS Office on Drugs and Crime. Afghanistan Opium Survey 2007. 29 Apr. 2011

UNITED NATIONS Office on Drugs and Crime. The Opium Economy in Afghanistan. 29 Apr. 2011<Thttp://www.unodc.org//pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf>

UNITED NATIONS International Drug Control Programme. Annual Opium Poppy Survey 2001. 29 Apr. 2011

United States. Department of Defense. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Opium and Afghanistan: Reassessing U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy. By John Glaze 2007. 29 Apr. 2011

Syke, Dan. "Where the Wild Hemp Grows."  High Times. 30 Oct. 2008. 29 Apr. 2011.