(Many people are advocating the medicinal use of marijuana for treatment of illnessess such as glaucoma and to alleviate the side-effects of medical treatments such as chemotherapy.
Whether or not marijuana should be available to people who have a diagnosed
medical condition is an issue separate from legalizing drugs for recreationmal use. The issues related to the medicinal use of marijuana are: Is marijuana
use a viable medical treatment; should marijuana be approved by the FDA
as a prescription drug; and is the FDA approval process biased against
marijuana?)
(Although I don't intend to address these issues further in this essay, I would like to point out that most advocates of legalizing marijuana for medical use are themselves social users of this drug. By selfishly affiliating medical issues with recreational abuse they dilute and degrade the validity of the (possibly) legitimate argument for legalization for medical use to meet the needs of a small number of people.)
My objection is to legalizing more drugs (in addition to alcohol and
nicotine) for recreational use. In my life I've seen careers ruined,
lives destroyed, families torn apart, children irreparably harmed and
even deaths caused by illegal drug use - including marijuana. I know of
no one whose life was improved by drug abuse. My own anecdotal
experiences coupled with all the scientific data I've read convince me
that no additional drugs should be approved for recreational use.
If drug abuse harmed only the user, a strong argument could be made that
laws and penalties cause more harm than good to the user's life, and
that each individual should be allowed to make their own decision
regarding drug use.
However, drug users cause extreme harm to their families, particularly
children, and seem driven to recruit others to drug use. In addition,
drug use is directly and irrefutably linked to unsafe driving, workplace
accidents, spouse and child abuse, violence and crime. Nor would
legalizing drugs end drug-related crime - a common argument by the
pro-drug lobby. Would lowering the cost - thus greatly increasing the
use of drugs - be an inducement to honest employment by a drug addict?
How many living-wage jobs do you know of which could be performed (or
even held) by a junkie, crackhead, or other addict?
Increasing the availability and lowering the cost of drugs would greatly
increase use, and thus the negative impact on society. Prostitution,
robbery and theft would continue, and any decrease caused by lower
prices would likely be offset by vastly increased numbers of drug
abusers.
Furthermore, I don't know if you've ever been in contact with a person
experiencing cocaine- or methamphetamine-induced psychosis, but they
tend to be extremely irrational and brutally violent. Watch the movie
"Night of the Living Dead" if you want to see a stark depiction (via
metaphor) of an America filled with violent, mindless drug addicts.
Some argue that legalizing drugs would destroy the drug syndicates and
cartels. Possibly, but keep in mind ending prohibition didn't end the
syndicate and legalizing gambling (aka Las Vegas) certainly didn't get
the Mafia out of the gambling business. At best, legalizing drugs would
make the US government the largest drug pusher in the world - a claim to
fame I certainly don't want for my country.
In discussions about legalizing more drugs for social use, the 1920s prohibition
against alcohol is frequently cited as proof that "prohibition doesn't work."
Actually, although prohibition did not stop all alcohol use (an impossibility),
prohibition did work if you consider the following: During prohibition spouse and child abuse was down,
drunk driving declined and absenteism and alcohol-related workplace accidents
declined. Far from providing an argument in support of legalizing drugs today,
our nation's experiences with prohibition graphically demonstrate
the potential dangers of this course of action.
I do advocate a switch from a focus on punishment to one of
treatment and prevention for drug users (and potential drug users, which
is all of us). For the most part, these people are victims, not
criminals. It is bitterly ironic (and hypocritical) for a nation of
alcoholics and nicotine addicts to be inflicting harsh penalties on
users of other drugs under the guise of protecting this nation - and
much of the discourse is patently false, to the point of employing
propaganda techniques to sway public opinion.
More people will be killed by drunk drivers and cigarette use this year
than all known drug-related deaths and killings combined - and that
includes ALL drug-related deaths and killings at all crackhouses and in all drive-by shootings combined - and yet our government
subsidizes alcohol and tobacco production and even promotes marketing
the products of these industries to children in foriegn countries.
And of course the hyposcrisy of Nancy Reagan sipping a gin and tonic
while telling kids to "just say no" was not lost on kids - who have the
remarkable ability to smell a hypocritical adult a mile away. During the Reagan administration with its purported active fight against drugs, this nation actually reduced intervention and treatment efforts.
Some people argue that since alcohol use is legal, at least marijuana use should be legal, since marijuana is not potentially any more harmful than alcohol. However, this is an invalid argument. Let me restate this argument for discussion purposes:
The obvious flaw in this argument is the assumption that if one harmful drug is legal, this creates a legitimate need to legalize more drugs. Few people would deny the harmful affects on society caused by alcohol abuse. However, the fact that society allows the legal use of one harmful drug does not in any way justify the legalization of more drugs. Here is the counter argument:
Whether you agree or disagree, I'd like to hear your views on this issue. Please keep your comments focused and to the point, and I'll post any interesting responses. PLEASE REMEMBER: It is not sufficient simply to state I'm wrong. You must either frame a valid argument supporting an alternative position or demonstrate flaws in logic which would make my argument invalid.
Reid,
You claim to be an atheist, so I suppose you may have somehow
experienced the oppression of a religiously-run government.
Why, then, would you applaud the government's further controlling our bodies and minds by keeping drugs from our legal grasp? The
government's one true role is to protect each individual's rights. It should protect me from other humans, not protect me from my own actions. In short, only crime should be illegal.
It's purpose is not to decide my vices, for a vice is not necessarily a crime. Crime is an action harming another human being. A vice is an action I partake in that may or may not harm me, and, as long as it does not harm another, the government should not interfere.
You may say with some truth that "drugs harm the user." They may
indeed do so, but why must you protect me from myself?
Let us then allow the Xian (Christian) to bombard us all with propaganda because, if we are not saved, we supposedly face an eternity of hell. Is that not worse than a life of drug-use? Should the government not impose mandatory church attendence for the saving of our souls? Some would hold that the health of the soul is more important than that of the body, anyway.
In conclusion, the U.S. government is not our Mother. It should not enforce a false morality, government's sole purpose being to protect me from you and you from me.
Embrace a critical view of government, a libertarian view.
(I visited your page via the Humanist Association of Tulsa
Athens/Forum/8666)
Thanks,
Rebecca
"The world you desired can be won, it's real, it exists, it is yours."
There are no valid arguments for legalizing drug abuse... and extensive arguments against legalization
This is not an argument against the
medical use of drugs by doctors. Many frequently abused drugs are currently legal for medical use, including morphine- and cocaine-based
drugs, both organic and synthetic, which are staples of the medical
profession. Heroin is even used for terminally-ill patients as a pain
treatment (obviously, addiction is not a concern for a person with a
short time to live).
Please e-mail your response to: reid@teleport.com
Responses
Rebecca Responds...
"Why must you protect me from myself?"
A Libetarian perspective
You can e-mail Rebecca at:
wrebecca@oocities.com
...or visit her web page:
Rebecca's Page - Another HTML file
(Editor's Note: Do yourself a favor - visit Rebecca's page and spend some time there. She is an awesome poet and essayist with a unique (if sometimes slightly disturbing) perspective on life. Her page is a good example of the Internet actually living up to its promise. Reid)
Charles Responds...
"Refutations and examples"
In reference to your possition on the legislation of drugs...
I will make my answers in point form so as to make it easier.
-Did prohibition help organized crime or damage it? Why would drugs be any different?
-Drug abuse in Western Europe is at far lower rates per capita then North America - yet they have legalized many drugs. This sets a precedent which cannot be denied.
-As for your arguements about alcohol: Nations in which younger people can legally drink have lower rates of alcohol abuse.
Pardon any spelling errors please. My first four years of eduacation were in french in the 8 years since I still feel its affects.
Thank you for your time,
Charles Allen
You can e-mail Charles at:
"Kingmaker" warlord@connect.ab.ca
You are not a Clockwork Orange - Main Page
If you advocate legalizing drugs and claim you are doing it to benefit drug users, I would suggest you visit the children of a junkie, a crackhead or a drug-addicted prostitute with AIDS. Then explain again how you are helping these people (and all potential drug users) by increasing the ease and availability of their drug supply.
© 2001 reid@teleport.com
Get your own Free Home Page