This paper is a discussion of the question of whether or not nonviolent drug offenders should continue to be imprisoned. Since the early 20th century, the use of narcotics and other controlled substances has been seen as evil, destructive, and morally reprehensible, and the national anti-drug policy that has slowly evolved since then has developed into a war on drugs that usually leads to prison. With the institution of mandatory sentencing, the possession, use, and sale of illicit drugs has come to account for a significant portion of all arrests and convictions, at a considerable cost to the legal system. Yet harsh penalties have not resulted in a substantial reduction in drug use and have instead filled already overcrowded prisons with offenders whose principal crime has been against themselves. While the majority of Americans oppose legalizing drugs, other solutions, especially the establishment of drug courts and treatment options, may provide better responses to the growing problem. The current system does not appear to deal effectively with widespread drug abuse. This paper argues that incarceration is not the best response or the most effective use of resources in these cases.
Until the early 20th century, drug use went unregulated in the United States. Individuals who so wished could buy and use opium, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and other drugs for whatever purposes they wished. Many narcotics were added in small quantities to popular nostrums and preparations that were widely available for sale.
In 1912, the United States signed an international agreement to control narcotics, and, in 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which regulated the sale of opium and cocaine. In an outgrowth of the temperance movement, this legislation was eventually used to ban all but medical use of these narcotics. By the passage in 1937 of the Marijuana Tax Act, which imposed a $100-per-ounce tax on nonindustrial use of hemp and...