Adam Goryca

English 1020

Todd Breijak

December 1, 2012

Project Four Rough Draft

            Over the years we have all heard plenty of desperate pleas coming from recently convicted criminals explaining why they committed the crime they did.  Some excuses, such as, “It looked fun in Grand Theft Auto, so I thought I would try it in real life,” have no reasonable backing and usually get laughed out of the courtroom.  However on the other hand, certain criminals make very valid points that cause us to question the beliefs that were instilled in us back when we were young children.  One such argument that I have heard many times is the controversy of a so-called “victimless crime”.  Could there really be such a thing as a victimless crime?  If so, with no victims, why was there a call to make this act illegal to begin with? 

Over the years the United States government has developed and implemented more and more laws that were not necessarily demanded by the public, but they felt would benefit society as a whole.  An example of this can be found when exploring the infamous War on Drugs.  The action of selling illicit drugs from one individual to another is truly a victimless crime.  If the individual happens to take too much of the drug and overdoses that was the persons mistake and should not be attributed to the sale of the drug.  When a college student dies from alcohol poisoning people do not put the blame on Burnett’s Vodka Company or the local liquor store for the death; the blame is placed on the student and the people they were with who allowed them to consume such a dangerous amount of alcohol.  Another argument that might come up when discussing if there are victims associated with the selling of drugs is the violence associated with the mass distribution sector of this trade.  However, the average citizen who buys their drug of choice off of the local dealer will not ever face this violence.  It is secluded to the violent criminals that make this trade their full-time profession. Nonetheless, the grand solution to all of these counterarguments, you might find, is rather elementary.  Simply legalize all of the illicit drugs that fund these massive drug organizations, and sell them to the public at cost.

Just like when this kindergarten country is on the brink of any potential watershed moment, there are always the critics who fight against change.  Some argue that even small-scale distribution is not a victimless crime because of damage drugs can do to an individual and their loved ones.  The obvious rebuttal to this is the massive amounts of damage that alcohol and tobacco, two legally sold and regulated products, cause every year.  The individuals who have a strong desire for illicit drugs are already consuming them daily, so with legalization only part time users will surface.  There will not be this apocalyptic change in society that some people are predicting.  Others argue that the removal of drug profits from crime organizations will not cause them to lose power, only switch their focus to other sources of income.  Of course any organization would make this change simply to survive.  However, even with this shift in focus crime organizations will never come close to recouping all of the profits lost by the drug trade, as this is by far their biggest source of income.  The one factor of this that is still left up to the government is the price at which these drugs are sold.  If the legal prices rise over the current street value for any drug the black market drug trade will continue to thrive.  The only way to ensure that all of the current drug users will convert to the legal form is to sell it below street value, and also explicitly state its purity on the packaging to ensure quality.