Legalization of Recreational Drugs
The Legalization of Recreational Drugs
Karl Marx was interested in the plight of the working class; he questioned a government structure in which a small few profit at a cost to the masses (Miller, Schreck &Tewksbury, 2006. p., 190). Marx was critical of the capitalist system because he saw the rich (bourgeoisie) dictating the lives of the working class. This idea has had large implications for many fields of study including philosophy, sociology and criminology. Marx’s criticism on the failings of a capitalist system can be exemplified by today’s drug laws which directly and negatively affect the lower classes while benefiting the upper classes. An argument can be made for the legalization of recreational drugs like heroin using a Marxist perspective; including drug laws that favor the upper classes and stigmatize the lower classes and policy that aids in the creation of a criminal enterprise.
Current drug laws are founded upon a history of both racism and classism beginning with the Opiate Act of 1908 (Solomon &Usprich, 1991), Canada’s first law prohibiting the use of a recreational drugs. At the time, the general public was more concerned with negative health and moral affects that alcohol and tobacco were having on society than with the effects of opium (Solomon &Usprich, 1991). However alcohol and tobacco use was common among white upper and middle classes, while the use of opiates was typically a pastime of the Chinese-lower class; “…the moral crusade against opium succeeded because it was directed against Chinese opium smokers and Chinese opium industries; it posed no threats to white middle class vices or business interests” (Solomon &Usprich, 1991). This decision was made without the consideration of any harm the drugs themselves may cause but was based mostly on the benefit to the upper and middle class whites (Solomon &Usprich, 1991). During this period the white lower and middle class and Chinese lower class were in competition within the job market; due to the completion of the railway. This left many previously employed Chinese railway workers without employment and forced them to seek other job opportunities (some of which had been exclusively dominated by white workers). The Opiate Act benefited the white upper classes by imprisoning or deporting Chinese opiate users-thus removing them from the competitive job market. More recent drug laws have continued the trend of selective implementation of drug laws.
“…[T]rends in drug use since World War II indicate that large epidemics among white drug users may or may not bring about more drug policing, tough new penalties or rise in imprisonment. Yet frequently, small-scale outbreaks in drug use among Blacks and Hispanics do elicit a harsher criminal backlash” (Covington, 2004).
Case in point, in 1937 marihuana was criminalized in the United States with the passing of the Marihuana Tax Act (Covington, 2004), at the time the majority of marihuana users were among lower class Mexican Americans. In the 1950’s Marihuana was considered a dangerous substance and was considered akin to drugs such as heroin and cocaine; during this time in the 1950’s the majority of marihuana users were low-income earners and minorities. Flash forward to the 1960’s and 70’s when marihuana use was in its heyday. During this period, marihuana use had transcended its low-class status and was frequently used by members of the young white upper classes (Covington, 2004). If law makers were concerned about the negative effects the drugs could cause, the spread and popularity of the drug should have prompted the policy makers to implement harsher penalties and policies to prevent the use of marihuana; this was not the case. Such policies, after all, would affect the young adults and teenagers of the policy makers and other affluent voters (Covington, 2004) so it was decided in all of eleven states to decriminalize marihuana. It’s ironic then “that the largest drug epidemic since 1914 led to the liberalization of drug laws” (Covington, 2004). Further evidence of the classist implementation of drug laws can be seen during the explosion of cocaine use in the 1970’s and 80’s. During this period cocaine was being used in two forms; crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. Both were different preparations of the same drug, however powdered cocaine was exceptionally more expensive to purchase then was crack and therefore, was predominantly used by more affluent drug users, while crack was used by the lower class drug users. It would be logical that laws surrounding the use of both types of cocaine would be the same, but again this was not the case (Covington, 2004). The cocaine epidemic did not result in harsher laws or even a rise in the number of powder cocaine users or dealers in prison; however “The small-scale 1980’s outbreak in crack led to the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and 1988 which mandated harsher federal sentences for crack cocaine than for powdered cocaine use” (Covington, 2004).
The Ostracism of lower class minority groups through the implementation of classist drug policies have the same benefits to the bourgeoisie today as they did at their conception. By marginalizing groups through imprisonment and criminal records the upper class ensures the degradation of the proletariat. Imprisonment and criminal records make it difficult for the lower classes to find legitimate means of supporting themselves financially. Many lower class individuals find their only means of income is related to drugs. As a consequence of this, many gangs and organized crime affiliates flourish within the ghettos and other areas populated by low income individuals. A main source of revenue for gangs and organized crime syndicates include growing, producing, importing, exporting and selling illegal substances. Gangs become dangerous when rivals compete over turf. In the 1980’s turf wars between rival gangs such as “the Crips, the Bloods, the Mexican Mafia, the Gangster Disciples and others” raised homicide rates in several American cities because of arguments over turf (Johnson, 2004). In Canada in 1995, a turf war between the Hells Angels motorcycle gang and the Rock Mountain motorcycle gang resulted in a death toll of 25 (“A Bloody Turf War”, 1995) and was the result of a struggle between the two over Montreal’s illicit drug trade (“A Bloody Turf War”, 1995). Again, these issues are primarily the problem of the lower class as most gang members are a part of the lower class themselves and tend to gather together in areas of low income (such as ghettos and public housing). So it’s in these areas that violence typically occurs, putting the lives of the innocent people who live near these areas in jeopardy. Legalizing all illicit drugs would reduce this problem dramatically because drug users would be able to obtain their drugs from reputable establishments. Proof of this can be seen through history; during prohibition for example bootlegging or rum-running became commonplace. “Organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol” (Prohibition, 2009). As a result of the influx of organized crime, murder rates and reports of theft also increased (Prohibition, 2009). Countries like Canada and the United States must legalize all illicit drugs in order to reduce all incidences of illegal substance selling. It has been shown that legalizing “soft drugs” like Marihuana just leads to dealers-dealing harder drugs like cocaine (Korf, Brochu, Benschop, Harrison & Erickson 2008). Furthermore decriminalization of certain drugs will do nothing to solve the gang problem.
If Canada legalized all illicit drugs they would be better able to monitor the use of specific drugs within certain communities, “it would make it easier to check the strength and purity of the drugs and the way they were administered and to whom they are sold” (Hauge& Ragnar, 2003). Furthermore, the government would be obtaining the revenue for selling the drugs (not the drug dealers) and would be able to use those funds for prevention and education about the harms of drug use (Hauge& Ragnar, 2003). Legalization would reduce the stigmatism surrounding drug users; they wouldn’t have criminal records or spend time in jail for their substance use. This would make it easier for them to gain employment. Legalization would also result in jobs like marihuana and opium production to become legitimate means of employment and could reduce drug related crime.
Legalization of illicit drugs would not solve all the problems our country faces with illicit substances. It would however, reduce some of the negative effects we currently face as a result of drug problems, such as breaking the cycle of biased policy which favor the upper classes. Legalization would also reduce some of the disparities between lower and upper classes and provide legitimacy for some types of jobs. In addition having the drugs available through legal means would eliminate the need for gangs which supply the drugs to the users. Finally it would make monitoring the drug using population easier, and could potentially provide funding for anti-drug education and prevention policies; which if successful could eliminate drugs from our society altogether and that should be the goal.
References
A Bloody Turf War. (1995). Maclean’s, Vol 108,(40)
Covington. (2004). Drugs and the Racial Divide Selective Punishment of Black Offenders. Souls Winter,Vol 6(1), p 4-15.
Hauge &Ragnar. (2003). Legalization of Illicit Drugs: Two Sides to the Coin. Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs, Vol. 98 Issue 6, p717-178, 2p.
Johnson. (2004). Mean Streets Once Agiain: Gang Activity Surging. USA Today.
Korf, Brochu, Benschop, Harrison & Erickson. (2008). Teen Drug Sellers-An International Study of Segregated Drug Markets and Related Violence. Contemporary Drug Problems, Spring2008, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p153-176, 24p
Miller, Schreck &Tewksbury. (2006). Criminological Theory A Brief Introduction. Boston MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Prohibition. (n.d). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 02, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
Solomon & Usprich. (1991). Canada’s Drug Laws. Journal of Drug Issues, Vol. 21 issue 1.
