Activity 8

As far as the “war on drugs” goes in the United States, I wouldn’t go as far as saying we’ve lost the war, but I would say we’re losing so far. In the battle against each drug, we’ve seen the following: marijuana usage has become so widely accepted that the federal government basically gave up on prosecuting recreational or medicinal use of the product; cocaine and crack has seen a huge difference in sentencing for each because of the racial stereotype to the usage of each; tobacco, despite reductions in advertising and popularity, is still the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, claiming approximately 5 million lives per year (Fast Facts). This doesn’t even include the issues with alcohol, prescription drugs, etc. 

There are multiple costs in losing the “war on drugs”, starting with the reputation of the federal government. When citizens see the federal government involved in a “war on drugs” and then see them concede on the use of marijuana, it makes citizens question the decision to declare the war in the first place. Another cost of losing the “war on drugs” is the literal cost of it. In the 44 years of the “war on drugs”, the United States government and taxpayers have spent over one trillion dollars in the fight against drugs. To see this amount of money spent while seeing no major affect on the quantity of drugs traded, sold, and used in the United States, it comes off as reckless spending by the federal government. A third cost of losing the “war on drugs” is the imprisonment rates in the United States. There have been recent issues of overcrowding in prisons nationwide, mainly due to the fact that over 30 million individuals have been arrested for drug-related crimes. That’s not saying that use of illegal drugs shouldn’t be punished, however, I still feel that violent offenders and offenders against children should be the top priority to be incarcerated. This was a cost that should have been anticipated by the federal government when declaring the “war on drugs”, forcing them to either build more prisons or clear space for future drug arrests. But instead, we’ve run into an overcrowding issue with plea deals being struck left and right to avoid jail time.

Activity 7 Post

        In the panel discussion, the six panelists and the mediator covered a great deal of information in dealing with medical marijuana, all of which had to be based on fact, evidence, first-hand experimentation, etc. One of the early arguments for legalization that was made in the discussion was comparing marijuana to Marinol. In the study, it was shown that marijuana was just as effective as Marinol in increasing appetite, which is the designed purpose for Marinol. Marinol, however, is a Schedule III drug, while Marijuana is a schedule I drug with the argument being made that the reason is the abuse potential of marijuana. However, one panelist makes the case that amphetamines, including prescription ones like Adderall, have higher abuse potential than marijuana, yet Adderall is Schedule II because of its medical benefits, while marijuana is Schedule I despite its medical use in some states.

A strong argument against legalization of marijuana is the issue of public health. One panelist made the point that studies have shown that as the danger level of a substance goes up or is played up, the usage goes down, especially for ages in which initiation usually starts (8th, 10th, 12th grade). On the contrary, it’s also been shown that as the danger level or perception is toned down, the usage goes up, especially among younger users that are trying for the first time. Another argument for the prohibition of marijuana beyond the medical level is the study that was recently done by one of the panelists that shows that states with distilleries have a direct correlation to an increase in adult recreational use. However, it should also be noted that there was no supporting evidence that showed a change for minors, so the public health issue is mainly dealing with adults.