US vs. Europe vs. Third World Part IV

Drug enforcement is an area where the EU and the US share different approaches. Holland has legalized many drugs that in the US are currently illegal. European countries are a lot more lenient towards drugs and drug consumption than the US. The US government has also taken active role in keeping the drinking age at 21. This policy is really viewed as controversial not only in Europe but in other countries as well. It was very shocking for me coming from a country where the drinking age limit is 18 and not enforced to the US where it was virtually impossible to get alcohol if one is under 21. In the US there is an assumption that government has a legitimate role in correcting any behavior that does not meet a required standard. It is essential that one is given the personal responsibility to make the individual choice if one wants to engage in destructive behavior or not. For my surprise American kids told me that in the dorms it was easier to get marijuana and other drugs than alcohol. If you don’t consume drugs you won’t know who it is, but there is always someone in the dormitory building who sells drugs. You can see this phenomenon more clearly when one tries to purchase alcohol in a bar or from a liquor store with a fake ID; there is a considerable amount of risk of getting in trouble during the transaction since the other party is obeying the law. That compared to buying drugs from the kid a few doors down in the resident hall which is virtually risk free because no party is obeying the law; American kids often choose the latter. So as you can see that the 21 drinking age limit has ultimately made some kids, not all, look for alternatives to drinking like marijuana and other drugs. In my opinion this is actually worse than an 18 drinking age limit in Europe and most of the world. Again we can see what happens when you try to do good by force. A lyric from a song of my country’s most famous singer/songwriter best captures the irony of this specific US policy, “By eighteen you (an American) are still a child for a drink in a bar, but you are also a full-grown man to kill and for a war”. This type of inconsistencies in policies are what fuels anti-American ideology, at least in Latin America. The US is the biggest consumer of drugs in the world and the country with largest budget in drug enforcement. As long as there is demand, there will always be someone willing to supply. As with alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s, drugs prohibition also creates a great number of problems like pushers in street corners, police corruption, fighting amongst drug dealers, and the billions and billions of dollars spent in drug enforcement. It is no surprise why rate of violence is much higher in the US than it is in the EU. Engaging in drug consumption, as alcohol and tobacco consumption, is a very dangerous endeavor that can result in death or prolonging illnesses. But one should never forget that the individual made a personal choice to engage in this destructive behavior. Other dangerous endeavors include hang gliding, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, skydiving, and one might very well choose not to participate in them. For example, with the awareness of the health hazards associated smoking, thousands of people have stopped smoking and those who still smoke are considered on some places social outcasts. Cigarettes kill more people every year than heroin and cocaine do combined and it is still very legal to smoke. As it is possible to voluntary stop drinking and smoking it is also possible, although sometimes harder, to stop consuming drugs. If the individual chooses not to stop consuming drugs, then that is a different story. The US and EU should gradually move towards Holland in their approach of personal responsibility. It should be in everyone’s individual decision and responsibility, not the state, to engage or not in drug consumption. As Peter King best describes, “It is reasonable to propose that the state should be neutral towards citizens, whom it has a duty to protect equally. It is not for the state arbitrarily to apportion benefits for some and punishment for others.” We can already see some positive change in policy when on December 7, 2004, New Yorkers voted to ease the tough Rockefeller Drugs which constrained individual liberty and since 1970’s have been sending some low-level first-time drug offenders behind bars for sentences ranging from 15 years to life. Nowhere in the EU could you possibly witness drug penalties this harsh and unjust.