---despite the fact that the cost of heroin for the street user has dropped through the years. This of course is not an argument for continuing prohibition, for the problems of prohibition extend far beyond levels of use. High levels of drug-associated violent crime and crushing pressure on the law enforcement and judicial systems are two important products of drug prohibition which have nothing to do with levels of drug use. Carter argues that illegal drugs create an incentive for individual Americans to participate in the drug trade because of the money involved. He presents data based on unmentioned sources, but, again, the audience he addresses is so immersed in such statistics that few would likely question the statistics. He may be exaggerating, but there is no doubt in America that poor inner-city youths are tempted by drug money. He writes: leaves the lingering and legitimate fear that legalization might produce a surge in use. It probably would, although not nearly as dramatic a one as opponents usually estimate (10). Since the courts and jails are already swamped beyond capacity by the arrests that are routinely made (44,000 drug dealers and users over a two-year period in Washington alone), and since those arrests barely skim the top of the pond, arguing that stricter enforcement is the answer begs a larger question: Who is going to pay the billions of dollars required [for such an expanded law enforcement effort]? (10). Carter does not evade the question of the negative effects of legalization of drugs, although perhaps he minimizes those possible effects. He admits that his argument for legalization up to this point still Again, by simply raising quickly and dismissing this likely rise in drug use after legalization, Carter fails to deal directly and effectively with the major protest against that legalization. If Carter wants to persuade his readers and change minds to support his position, he should have taken advantage of the opportunit |
