The policy of America towards drugs is aimed at reducing and controlling the supply of drugs. This is done through interdiction, incarceration, sentencing, legislation and enforcement of law. The policy also aims at curbing the supply of drugs through treatment, prevention and education. Since Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in the 1970, successive governments have spent a lot of money in disrupting trading of drugs in America. Arresting of thousands of drug offenders and seizures has not transformed America to a drug free nation. The availability of illegitimate drugs is more common now more than ever.
The law of prohibition of drugs has resulted into a failure that is costly to the American tax payers. More problems have been created by this prohibition and thus it has not eradicated the use of drugs in America (Harrison, et al. 2009). This war on drugs has encouraged corruption in enforcement of law, led to the distortion of America foreign policy and destroyed residents’ lives in most inner cities. The police, politicians and prosecutors continue holding unto prohibition as the way forward, yet it has failed miserably over decades (Harrison, et al.
2009). Many people argue that it is the high time the government opened up to other alternative policies such as legalization if there is still hope that war on drugs will be won. Fact and the Fiction of Drug Legislation Drug use is a civil liberty: It is a fact that the constitution of America provides the privacy right to every citizen and the government is barred from intruding into the personal lives of its citizens. The act of trafficking drugs is an activity which is voluntary and the use of drugs is done in private.
The use of drugs is entirely based on the values of the individual and their families. The law on drugs is used to force individuals to refrain from engaging in acts that are non-coercive because we think they might cause harm to themselves and other people (Staley, 1993). Since the use of drugs is done voluntarily, it is unlikely to inflict a third party who is uninvolved with any injury. The involvement of the state should arise if the drug user causes jeopardy on the welfare and health of other people.
Such instances include assaulting others or driving when under influence and using drugs when you are pregnant. The government should not concern itself with issues of an individual’s religion or morality. The use of drugs is normally viewed an issue pertaining to morals and the government should not involve itself with regulating the use of drugs (Staley, 1993). The use of drugs has been for a long time been treated like a criminal offense and all the agencies of the government have fought with it viciously interfering with the fundamental rights of Americans.
This fact has been fictional in the legislation on drugs as it interferes with all the civil liberties of an individual through prohibition. This statement is fictional since using of drugs enslaves an individual as it alters the nature of the abuser pathologically and has a very negative impact on their character. The state has the sole responsibility of freeing the citizen from the chemical dependency chain that has prevented them from living a free live. It is very crucial for the estate to act promptly to prevent these bonds from developing into shackles.
A state which is devoted to the freedom of individuals should have an obligation of nourishing the society with legal structures which should offer protection from drug addiction slavery to its citizens. The contention by libertarians that state regulated actions should include only those with an effect on others, not pertaining to abuse of drugs are misplaced. Drug abuse has a direct effect on people e. g. a baby may be addicted involuntarily via the umbilical cord of the mother, a spouse who is abused by a drug user and innocent people killed by teenagers who have imbibed crack cocaine.
Nowadays, societies are very interdependent and thus the conduct of drug users has a substantial impact (Califarno, 1996). Examples of such impacts include: the burden they place on every taxpayer for footing the health consequences emanating from the abusers actions and the hefty bills accumulated by the criminal justice system. The state has banned lead paints, insulation by asbestos, fabrics which are highly flammable and toys that jeopardize safety of users.
Then, why should it ignore banning cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamines, hallucinogens and heroin? Such a move will be senseless and meaningless as these narcotic substances causes more harm to the user and society as a whole (Califarno, 1996). The Supreme Court should be applauded for excluding the use of drug in the privacy right as this would increase the abuse of these substances. Most states do not recognize marijuana possession at home to be under protection of privacy rights.