oing to want to go to the black market. . . and buy crack. You wont be able to prevent that. But lets say 70 percent of the market will be using the legal, less potent substance. Thats good, because the government taxes it, regulates it. . . . The object is to undercut the criminal element" (Szasz, page 106).From this, we can only conclude that proponents of so called "drug legalization" are only pushing the legalization in order to eliminate or significantly reduce the criminal element. However, Szasz continues to add that "Undercutting the criminal element is a far cry from seriously engaging the problem of drug controls," (Szasz, page 107). In other words, even though legalization is possibly a step in the right direction, it still wouldnt bring this country out of the woods. In comparison, Szasz analyzes how legalizing drugs would be much like the system of prescription medication. The comparison between the prescription drug to the illicit drug is one of Szaszs most compelling arguments. According to Szasz, we will never be able to "control" all the substances out there. Szasz outlines how this mentality is much like an overprotective parent. The government doesnt trust its own people with their own bodies and the decisions that affect their bodies. Szasz states, in no uncertain terms, that people should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies.This leads directly into Szaszs third argument. Szasz argues that the solution to the countrys drug problems is to lift all prohibitions on all drugs, illicit and prescription. Then and only then would our government be obeying the Constitution as it is written. This laissez-faire system places the responsibility on the American people to police themselves when it comes to drugs. However, Szasz says that he "recognize[s] a need for limiting the free market in drugs, just as [he] recognize[s] a need for limiting the free market in many other goods. The legitimate p...
