Reflection
The media can be a great thing, it is a vast source of information and entertainment, but it is also a double edged sword; for with that information comes the opportunity for many, especially those in power to use that information for their own benefit. This information can be used out of context or edited to fit a bias or perspective. This is what I learned about the media this semester. Democracy is, in a sense bonded to the media. Whether it is a political debate or a “vote for” candidate commercial, the media is there, sending the message to the public. This media is often controlled in part by those who run the government, so the message is often times very biased. But the media is also a necessary part of the democratic process. With the free press, such as the one the United States was gifted by the founders of the nation, the conversation of the government reaches the citizens, who are the most important to the democratic process. It is their will through which the machine of government runs, after all.
Benjamin Franklin once said that in order to fight a system one must know and understand the system. This is true of the conversation as well. In order to know the conversation, one must also be aware of the biases and attempt, as is true with the subject of history, to sift through the biases to find the truth. As I look back on my media journal and analysis, I see a pattern of convenience. Whatever media consumed was often as a matter of convenience. I realize that these outlets were often times biased, but I recognize this. If I want an honest truth, I know that it is not something found easily or by convenience. It is something that must be found through diligent searching and sometimes through research. I learned that I must be more diligent when I am taking in media, and to not just consume what is “convenient” as I expose myself to more biased views and could fall victim to the any number of fallacies or not making the effort to seek out opinions that differ from my own.
As with all research papers, one must look at all sides, and attempt to find differing views and opinions. It is often hard to do in the subject of history, as much of history was written by “the winner” or rather; the biases of one group were often the only recorded. I sought many sources and attempted to find unbiased as well as biased voices for my research as it is better to have all sides of the issue. It was, at times, difficult to decipher the side of the debate of certain articles, as within them the opinion almost seemed one of indecisiveness. It helped me solidify my opinion that even within strong debates the lines are blurred, that it is not always a case of “black and white” but often a blurred gray. The world is full of such complexities. There is often no right or wrong answer, I find, it is an answer that must be married to find an even ground solution, the golden mean. But that too is a fallacy.
P.E.A.R.
To Legalize, or Not to Legalize: that…….is the question.
It is a pleasant late October day in 2010, as 47 year old Bernard Noble rides his bicycle through New Orleans’ South Miro Street. In 2005 this truck driver and father relocated his family to Kansas City after losing his house in Hurricane Katrina, but returned to visit his father. This October 27th, Noble’s life is about to change as he is stopped by two New Orleans police officers, who, after frisking him, find a bag containing less than 3 grams of marijuana.
Like many across the country, Noble is arrested for drug possession. In Louisiana, it is a crime that can get anywhere from six years to 20 years in prison, with a mandatory 13 and a half years for having prior possession convictions. Bernard Noble has had prior convictions, but due to his record as a providing father, the Louisiana Judge sentenced him to only 5 years, a sentence that outrages D.A. Leon Cannizzaro Jr. who, after three appeals gets the ruling shifted to the full 13 and a half year minimum. According to Noble’s appointed attorney, this sentence is one that carries even more prison time than the crime of sexual battery. (Barcott 2014)
When first I read this statistic, my reaction was one of disbelief and I read and reread it three times, trying to understand the words on the page. How could a crime relating to drugs warrant more time in prison than a heinous one? I couldn’t understand how the idea to “lock them up and throw away the key” was still prevalent in modern day society. But, as I found out, Bernard’s story is one that is not only very common in Louisiana, but also one that is very common across the country.
This is due largely to the “War on Drugs”; a “war” that was declared in the 1970’s as part of President Richard Nixon’s campaign to create a drug prohibition. It has, in the years afterward, given rise to illegal drug cartels, higher arrest rates which has also lead to near capacity prisons, and a legal system that has had to rely on “informers” and raids that are even more man-hour consuming for law enforcement officers than speakeasy raids during the Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920’s.
It has, according to many experts, also become a war targeting African Americans. It is the only crime in the United States that statistically shows a racial disparage in users versus those arrested. In 1998 approximately 72% of the users of illicit drugs are white (9.9 million) while 13% were black (2.0 million). In 2009 the same group study showed that there were four times more white drug users than black. (Block 2012, 108)
Since the 1970’s, according to economist Milton Friedman, over 3,000 African American men are arrested for every 100,000. That is more than the arrest rate during the South African apartheid. By country wide legalization, many hope these numbers will drastically fall or become zeroed entirely. There too, is hope that with legalization, so too will the romanticized “allure” of drugs, and there will be a drop in its usage.
Proponents for drug legalization also point to the many advantages that a legalized drug trade could bring. People like journalist Vanessa Baird, who has watched the evolution of the Nixon era “war” turn into a large scale criminal and terrorist supporting network. She has watched as the prohibition has unwittingly supported the financing of groups like Al-Qaeda which continue to destabilize countries like Afghanistan. (Baird 2012, 13-14)
Legalization would not only lessen this financial backing, but place the manufacture of these drugs into the hands of the legal drug companies that make Tylenol and prescription medicines. With this move, not only would the drugs be made safely, but also would bring a new economic base to the U.S. as taxation and legal payment would stimulate the economy. It has been argued by drug legalization advocates that legal drugs would inadvertently lead to job creation.
There is a darker side to this debate though, and while these many points do cede to the “glass is half full” side of the debate, they ignore some of the more vital arguments that show why the “war” on drugs was created in the first place. The first illegalization of drugs began in 1917, around the same time many states in the Union were also adopting the prohibition of alcohol, a substance known even in that time period to be overused and abused.
While the prohibition of alcohol did end in the 1930’s, the crime rate and arrest rate caused by the abuse of the substance increased. (Kerlikowske 2013) Studies have indicated that legalization of drugs would only cause crime to rise. According to William Bennet, crimes committed would rise because the actual criminal activity occurs before people begin to take the drugs. (Bennet 1990)
According to the non-profit Partnership Drug-free.org, people in favor of the legalization are under a false impression that there will not be any marketing for the newly legalized drugs, no exposure to children, but have many government restrictions. (Schultz 2014) This is not true, as the drugs, now legalized, would be under many of the same restrictions as already legal drugs such as OxyContin and Ambilify. Each of these drugs have risks that come with them and any advertising must also show what side-effects can occur. The same would be said of the newly legalized marijuana and meth. The price too, would shift, and the question remains as to whether people would buy them legally or whether or not they would still turn to the sources such as the black market for their “product” supply.
But the most important problem that opponents of legalization argue is that of the many health risks that come with the new legalization. After prohibition ended, a rise of newly legalized alcohol also gave rise to liver disease, accidental death by alcohol poisoning, death by automobile caused by an intoxicated driver, and many other alcohol related health problems that are still prevalent today.
Just like alcohol, drugs also have their share of problems relating directly to health. A recent study shown in Science News targets marijuana’s problems. The study shows that while it is less addicting than drugs such as meth and cocaine, and is used by the medical community to help ease the pain caused by more insidious diseases such as cancer, it still can cause problems, especially with those in the age range of 18-25. The study focused on the brain, and, like alcohol, it causes a change in the brain, and can change the way the brain receives and translates pain, memory, mood and appetite.
There is also a physical transformation that can occur, as the brain begins to structure itself differently. Fissures in the brain grow, and normal development of the brain is at risk. The Study also indicates that by comparison, smokers are more likely to quit school and have other behavioral deficits that non-smokers usually do not have. While some of the long term effects of marijuana are unknown at this time, it is safe to say that smoking marijuana can harm developing brains, just as legalized alcohol can.
Harder drugs such as heroine and meth have higher addiction rates and higher risk of overdose than marijuana, but all of them have the same potential problem of abuse and drug related deaths.
With states such as Colorado and Washington accepting and legalizing marijuana, it seems that its course health warnings and all has been decided, at least for these places.
By far marijuana is the popular vote when it comes to the argument of legalization, as it takes center stage and the drugs such as meth and heroine are placed in a more “illegal, legal” limbo.
While researching this, I decided the best thing to do was to find out what people thought. And I did so as any good nerd would do. I “trolled” an MMO for my answer. I chose World of Warcraft. This game is currently played by over 7.4 million people worldwide. These players are all of various ages, ethnicities, religious beliefs and other varying backgrounds. It has been, I have found, a good source for debate as players, bored of the long “dungeon” waits will often “troll”, or place, a topic in the main chat called 2trade and await the conversation.
There are two different “factions” on this game, and each has its own separate chat. So I put my question forth over 2trade on both factions and over seven different game servers to see just what my answer would be. I found that on “horde” sides, there seemed to be a near even number of people who agreed that drugs should be legal to those that should not be, while the “alliance” side, the numbers varied.
After tallying my results I could see an overwhelming agreement that drugs should be legalized. When I asked my question, nearly everyone who answered yes chimed in “marijuana” while those that said no also included marijuana.
Marijuana’s popularity seems to be true, but there was also a long debate from many of these players that there needs to be some sort of regulation that comes with legalization, and that it should be planned out long before a state thinks of placing legalization on the ballot.
To conclude, I learned a lot from both sides of this issue, and though my resolve that drugs should be legal has wavered, I still believe that, in time, just as prohibition with alcohol ended, so too will the prohibition of drugs.
Works Cited
Baird, Vanessa. "Legalize Drugs-All of Them!" New Internationalist, September 2012: 12-17.
Barcott, Bruce. "A Tale of Two Drug Wars." Rolling Stone Magazine, January 16, 2014: 35-39.
Bennet, William. "Should Drugs be legalized?" Reader's Digest, 1990.
Block, Walter E. "War on Black Men: Arguments for the legalization of Drugs." Criminal Justice Ethics, Volume 31, No. 2, 2012: 106-120.
Kerlikowske, Gil. "On the perils of pot legalization, and how Canada creates drug problems for the U.S." Maclean's Vol. 126, Issue 6, 2013: 1.
Schultz, E. J. "Why the partnership isn't flipping its lid over pot." Advertising Age, Vol.85 Issue 6, March 24, 2014: 20.
