Mind altering drugs are a recreational activity that humans have been involved with for thousands of years. While Western cultures have been mostly involved with alcohol, drugs like psychedelics, hallucinogens, uppers and downers have been consumed by different cultures all across the world for millennia. In the late 1800’s the United States viewed drugs as an issue that needed addressing, and slowly instituted laws to combat seemingly increased use. The implementation of legislation aimed at reducing or even ending drug use increased in America until 1970, when Richard Nixon signed the “Controlled Substance Act.” Viewed as the beginning of America’s “War on Drugs,” this act initiated the federal prohibition of most drugs and instituted severe punishments on users, possessors, and sellers of these banned substances. This “war” is still intact today, with the United States spending dozens of billions of dollars every year to enforce drug laws and sustaining the largest prison complex in the history of civilization. Drug prohibition was promoted by politicians as the best solution to a major drug issue, but drugs are currently being imported, sold, and consumed at steadily increasing rates in the United States. In addition to being wildly unsuccessful at stopping drug usage in America, drug laws have made society more dangerous by creating a massive unsupervised black market that supports cartels and not allowing research to be conducted on the narcotics. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens are imprisoned for non-violent, drug related, crimes, and the U.S. spends incredible sums of money while losing out on billions of dollars in potential drug tax revenue. Few people support the drug war, but are scared of what issues the alternatives would bring to society. If drugs were legal, wouldn’t drug use and crime increase? Portugal has shown that decreasing drug laws hasn’t increased drug use or crime, while our own drug laws have shown that more punitive laws have increased crime. Furthermore, the United States isn’t supposed to police an individual’s own decisions (so long as they don’t infringe on other citizen’s rights), and these laws are often discriminatory. Treating narcotics like other vices like alcohol or tobacco would make society safer, allow scientists to research possible health benefits and understand the effects of drugs better, increase tax revenue while decreasing policing costs, and keep non-violent citizens out of prison. Rather than continue with a hugely unsuccessful drug prohibition, legalizing all drugs to citizens over 18 years old would have incredible social and economic benefits while reasserting individual liberties of Americans. 

On July 4th, 1776, 56 men living in the British-controlled American colonies signed a document which outlined the colonist’s intentions to secede from England and form the United States of America. These men and the millions who supported them where fed up with an overreaching and oppressive British government, led by King George III. Thus, thousands fought and, improbably, won a war against the mighty British military on the basis of personal freedom and civil liberty. Wanting nothing more than to be left alone, the Founding Fathers instituted something unheard of at the time: A limited government with checks and balances, created so no one man becomes too powerful and no citizen should see their rights and civil liberties infringed. For decades, this government performed as promised, leaving most of the power to more localize areas, and more importantly, leaving people alone so long as they didn’t infringe on other citizen’s rights and liberties. Drug usage was not uncommon for Americans at this time, and drug usage only increased for the next century. In a country where almost all free citizens were white, drugs such as cocaine and heroin were commonplace in the 19th century and even prescribed by doctors. However, the second half of the 19th century saw a large shift in demographics. When the Civil War ended in 1865, almost four million slaves, or 12.5% of the total population, were freed. Western expansion into the West Coast and the booming railroad market around the middle of the century resulted in exponential immigration of Asian people into America, who mainly settled in Californian cities such as San Francisco. Other opportunities led to other racial minorities like Hispanics from Mexico taking up new residence in the United States. The later part of the 19th century also saw America’s first drug legislation being implemented. This violation of civil liberties was not unrelated to the increase in minority population. The first drug laws actually blatantly targeted minorities. White women were widely noted to be heavy users of opium in America, but when Chinese Americans started smoking opium commonly in dens on the West Coast, California instituted laws banning the use of this drug (3). Similar trends can be seen for the next few decades: states banned peyote to oppress Native Americans who used the drug in religious ceremonies, marijuana was made illegal so that the U.S. could deport more Mexicans(4), and southern regions banned Cocaine because it made black people “violent.” Just a century after thousands of men, women and children died to institute a country free for all, politicians were introducing legislation to oppress and control minority populations. Of course, Jim Crow, Asian American Exclusion and other policies prove drug prohibition to be neither the first nor most extreme forms of minority oppression by the U.S. government. However, while most other policies designed to oppress have since been dismantled, drug prohibition has only gotten more severe. 

When Richard Nixon campaigned in the late 1960’s, he faced two vocal oppositions. Nixon and the hippies of the counter culture (famous for good music, protesting the Vietnam War, free love, and especially drug use) shared a mutual visible hatred for each other. Black Americans had only recently succeeded in ending segregation and campaigning for civil rights in America. Meanwhile, Nixon attempted to win office with the infamous “Southern Strategy.” a method instituted after the civil rights movement where Republicans attempted to convert White, southern, racist voters who were historically democrats. This tactic lost whatever favor, if any, Nixon may have had with Black Americans. 85% of non-white voters chose the democrat Hubert Humphrey for president (9). Nixon sought retribution against these two groups for almost keeping him out of the White House. In 1970, he put the “Controlled Substance Act” into law claiming that drugs were one of the biggest problems facing America and this law would help combat this problem. In actuality, this legislation was intended to target and punish hippies and black communities- the two groups most noted for drug use at the time. It may sound like a conspiracy, but Nixon’s former domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman confirmed it. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people… We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities” (10). Just shortly after the progress of the civil rights movement, Nixon’s law continued discriminatory policies in a country meant to be fair and free to all.

Today drug prohibition is one of the most blatant violations of civil liberty enforced by the American government, and still sees racial discrepancies.  While the United States represents just 5% of the world population, it boasts 25% of all inmates. About half of those inmates are doing time for a drug offense. In other words, approximately 1/8 of all people incarcerated internationally are in an American jail for a drug related crime. While it seems excessive for any person to go to jail for harming themselves, the minority rates of incarceration are especially heinous. According to a 2011 survey from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, whites make up 63% of the population and are more likely to use drugs per capita, but blacks the U.S. account for 45% of drug related incarceration. White prisoners doing time for drug crimes is 33%. (11)

Meanwhile, jailing over half a million of it’s own citizens for non-violent actions (possessing, consuming or selling illicit drugs) isn’t cheap. Since 1970, the beginning of the War on Drugs, the collective American population has footed a bill upwards of $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars). Per year estimates show taxpayers paying about $50,000,000,000 (fifty billion dollars) to enforce drug prohibition. These numbers are as staggering as they look. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, the United States spends almost three times more money per year on each prisoner ($31,286) than it does on each student in the public education system ($12,509) (7). Drug laws have been a tool for discrimination since their inception, but that’s not how they are promoted. The government defends the War on Drugs by claiming it intends to reduce drug use and other pitfalls that are believed to accompany narcotics. The sentiment that drugs are an issue is common in American society, so while citizens may not like the discrimination that is present, the idea that the drug war reduces drug use is supported. The logic seems sound: If drugs are illegal, people will be less attracted to them. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs has been incredibly unsuccessful. 9.3% of Americans over the age of 12, about 25,000,000 (twenty-five million) people, admitted to using illegal drugs in 2013. (12) Heroin usage is at critical levels, rising 152% between 2007-2012 and only getting worse. (13) When compared to countries in Europe, the United States is the number one country in terms of; Opioid usage, cocaine usage, cannabis usage, amphetamine usage, and overdose deaths. (14) The U.S. is noted for both some of the strictest penalties for drug crimes, and extreme costs of prohibition enforcement, but this strategy has failed. 

How could a country enact strict penalties and spend billions of dollars banning something, but still have such high rates of usage? Part of it has to do with human nature. First of all, drugs aren’t just part of American culture, they’re part of total human culture and they have been for millennia. All cultures have had mind altering substances in their history. In the Americas, some indigenous groups have been using psychedelics like peyote and DMT for religious purposes since they can remember, and others consumed addictive drugs like tobacco and cacao leaves. Europeans and Asians have been drinking alcohol since antiquity, while certain groups in Asia indulged in opioids and marijuana commonly. It’s possible that drugs appeal to humans so much because they’re part of our tradition, and may have become ingrained in our species. Evolution led humans to pass on fears like spiders, heights, and the dark genetically, while also imparting the species with certain attractions such as types of food and physical traits as well (15). It’s possible that hundreds of generations of substance abuse have made the appeal of drugs somewhat instinctual. There’s another mental aspect that influences the appeal of drugs; rebellion. Generally speaking, when children are told they aren’t allowed to have something, they want it more. The ages most attributed with rebellion; mid-teens to early twenties, are also the ages with the highest rates of drug use (11). 

Inconsistency in government laws haven’t helped either. Politicians who have created and developed laws to stop drug usage didn’t make these laws on the basis of actual logic. These laws undeniably targeted minority groups, and thus the discrepancies in penalties and social perception lack any health basis. The drug policy divides drugs in five schedules, with schedule one being the worst: grouped for having large potential for abuse or addiction and no health benefits. This schedule includes heroin, marijuana, and LSD. Heroin seems to fit this label, but marijuana has been proven to contain medical benefits, and neither marijuana not LSD are viewed as being physically addictive. Meanwhile, cocaine and methamphetamine are in the second schedule grouping: meaning according to the government they are highly addictive but also have some medical benefits. It becomes harder to take the war on drugs seriously when the government claims such clear inconsistencies are facts, and builds policy around it.

 It is easy to argue that drugs should be illegal because they are bad for a person’s health, but the United States isn’t supposed to enforce an individual’s health. While certain drugs remain illegal, caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and processed and fast foods remain fine for Americans to consume. Alcohol and tobacco combined for over half a million American deaths combined in 2013 (12). Fatty foods are one of the biggest factors that contribute to heart disease which contributes to 610,000 every year in the U.S., or one out of every four deaths. Not only do are these vices legal, but the United States profits significantly, $20,000,000,000 (twenty billion dollars) from them (16).

Now, this isn’t a call for the United States to institute a more sensible drug ban that includes alcohol, tobacco, and more. This is a call to legalize all drugs. America allows citizens to harm themselves with countless things, because people are supposed to be left alone. Some supporters of civil liberties are against drug legalization because they are harmful to society and increase crime. However, the drug war has been far more harmful to society. Citizens are sometimes incarcerated for drug use, and even if they go clean now have permanent records that prevent them from putting the past behind them. The war on drugs has contributed to the militarization of the police force, and ostracized certain individuals for indulging in activities that have no effect on others. Furthermore, the idea that drugs are directly responsible for crime and thus they need to be banned are mistaken: Banning drugs are responsible for the drug related crime.  If drugs were legalized and treated like tobacco and alcohol, crime would decrease dramatically.

Thousands of Americans use alcohol and tobacco, drugs that are addictive, alter your mental state, and can cost lots of money. However, the violent crime rates surrounding these drugs aren’t close to at the same rates as banned drugs.  The reason is clear, when the government bans a good that citizens still want, black markets are created. Companies that produce legal goods are overseen by the American government. When a good is left on the black market, a buyer or seller has no reason to be ethical because they lack accountability. For example, if someone assaults and robs a drug dealer they cannot report it to the police. A drug dealer’s best course to regain their money or drugs is to commit assault or robbery themselves. However, if a man were to rob a liquor store, the owner of the store can contact the police, meaning they have routes to regain they’re lost goods or money in ways other than committing their own crime. The same concept applies for competition in the open versus black market. If two competing businesses want to take the other’s customers, they will try tactics available to them like lowering their prices or offering better products. In the black market, sellers aren’t limited to legal modes of beating competition, they can instead harm or kill opposition. The difference in these two markets aren’t regarding the product, they have to do with the fact that once people are already selling a banned item, they have far less incentive to be lawful. Not to mention, people who decide to sell products that the United States have banned may not be ethical. 

In addition to creating a more harmful community, drug prohibition also creates a more harmful product. Legal drugs have safety standards that are overseen and enforced by the United States government. Stories of people smoking marijuana, purchased on the black market, that was laced with more harmful drugs aren’t uncommon. Other drugs such as LSD and Ecstasy must be chemically produced and can be very difficult to make well. When drugs are purchased on the black market, the origin of the product and the people who have passed it around are unknown. Buyers in a black market are forced to put their trust into the sellers, who tend to be untrustworthy. The prohibition of alcohol in the early 20th century demonstrates both of these negative community and health well. When the alcohol ban first went into effect, consumption fell. However, after only two years alcohol use began to rise until it was at roughly the same rate of consumption as before the ban. When the government recognized the rates were increasing, they began sinking more and more money into enforcing their law. The black market thrived during this time, and between 1925 and 1930, prohibition related crimes rose 1000% (17). Meanwhile, alcohol potency rose 150% during the time it wasn’t overseen by the government (17). Banning products aim to end the prevalence of its use in society. The problem is, if the demand remains, a black market is created which actually creates a more harmful environment and product. 

One country that saw a need for drug policy reform was Portugal, who decriminalized drugs in 2001. The drugs remained against the law but when caught with a 10-day drug supply or less, offenders were sent to counseling rather than court. Since that time, drug usage has remained relatively steady, but addiction and overdose deaths are the lowest in all of Europe, and prison rates decreased significantly (1). This policy has shown to be successful for improving the health of the user but it isn’t a setup that should be adopted by the United States. Portugal still bans these drugs which means a black market still exists, and the country still sinks the same amount of money into policing drugs. In fact, homicide was up 40% in the first five years after the change in legislation. A UN World Drug Report attributes this to a rise in drug trafficking in Portugal (1), showing the black market had actually grown in this environment. If Portugal were to completely legalize all drugs the drug market would not have grown from illegal traffickers. Rather, legal businesses would be set up, which would be strictly overseen an unable to commit crimes. 

Drugs certainly have negative impacts on communities, whether they are legal or illegal. After dedicating 100 years and $1,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) to combating drugs with bans, it’s time for the United States to rethink its policy. The impact of drug prohibition is clear: It creates more crime and reduces the safety of drugs and communities. Furthermore, America’s drug ban is both discriminatory and arbitrary, and has severe negative impacts on its citizens. A drug prohibition goes against the concept of America, a place where people can do whatever they want so long as they don’t impede on other people’s rights. Anyone who really wants to improve the safety of their community, end discriminatory legislation, and uphold the values of the United States should push to legalize drugs.
