The Drug War

Hodding Carter III, in "We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works," argues that the war on drugs is a failure and should be replaced with a policy which legalizes drugs. There are a number of problems with Carter's argument. He may understate the major problem associated with legalization (a rise in drug abuse), and fails to note at least one important argument for legalization (the shifting of funds from fighting illegal drugs to treating addicts). In addition, his arguments are not as fully supported by evidence as they might have been. Whatever power Carter's essay has is rooted in the emotional appeal he makes to the reader, but even in that case he could have been far more persuasive, especially after acknowledging that he is repeating arguments made earlier by others. He is likely aware that he is presenting his argument to an audience (American society) which is increasingly angered, frightened and frustrated by the apparent failure of the "war on drugs" and which wants something effective to be implemented. He is also probably aware that this society is disinclined to legalize drugs, especially cocaine and heroin, but he perhasps should have recognized that the emotional resistance to such legalization can best be met with an even more powerful emotional argument against continued prohibition and for legalization. It might also be argued that he presents a false dilemma---the choice between continued illegality or complete legalization. There may be s

Related Essays

Losing the Drug War Hodding Carter III, in "We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works," presents a compelling, well-reasoned, and finally convincing argument that .... (1459 6 )

on Drugs .... A survey of 300 US police chiefs in 1996 found that only 3% believed the government's drug war had been "very successful" at reducing the drug problem. .... (1024 4 )

US ANTI-DRUG POLICIES IN SOUTH AMERICA .... In spite of all the resources committed to the so-called drug war, the production of illicit drugs continues to increase, and the supply of illicit drugs .... (1929 8 )

on Drugs .... In 2001, it was reported that the United States had spent over $1 billion on the drug war in Latin America, with a substantial portion of this amount going to .... (2695 11 )

The US on Drugs in Colombia and Peru .... In 2001, it was reported that the United States had spent over $1 billion on the drug war in Latin America, with a substantial portion of this amount going to .... (2704 11 )

pect of Carter's argument cannot be overestimated because it relates to the crime, especially the violent crime, which is engendered among suppliers, dealers and users of drugs. Elimination of the financial incentives of dealing drugs will eliminate much of the violent crime which is an expression of the competition for drug customers and territory among drug suppliers and dealers. Carter tries to support his argument by illustrating another problem with intensifying the war on drugs through increased law enforcement: Since the courts and jails are already swamped beyond capacity by the arrests that are routinely made (44,000 drug dealers and users over a two-year period in Washington alone), and since those arrests barely skim the top of the pond, arguing that stricter enforcement is the answer begs a larger question: Who is going to pay the billions of dollars required [for such an expanded law enforcement effort]? (10). This rhetorical question can only be answered: the taxpayers. The reader/taxpayer cannot help but be influenced in resisting such an increase in the war on drugs, even if it does not necessarily result in his or her favoring legalization. Carter's claim of policy against the war on drugs is effective in wha

Category: Government - T