DrugsThere are many angles to this issue and I’ll cite several different websites on both sides, but it seems undeniable that the current “war” on drugs in ineffective and is filling our prisons with people who stand no chance of being reformed or rehabilitated. I won’t propose any leniency on drug-associated crimes with an identifiable victim, or distribution to minors, but in the case of “victimless” use and possession it seems that the current policies are flawed. At a fundamental level, first consider what rights do you wish to surrender to enable the government to control your body and actions in the privacy of your own home? If the supreme court can grant abortion rights based on a woman’s right to privacy in controlling her own body, it would seem that consenting adults should be able to regulate their own drug use. The minute that “high” individual goes out and drives recklessly, or robs a liquor store, the courts should throw the book at him, but until that point, his bodily functions should be his own.A more subtle argument is based on the definitions of illegal drugs versus legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Many lives have been ruined and property crime committed under the influence of alcohol, and the health affects of tobacco are irrefutable, yet why do we chose to tolerate those intoxicants and not others? Let’s at least apply a consistent principle to all addictive chemicals. Most of the other various arguments comparing foreign countries, citing corrupt systems, claiming racial biases, etc., are based on pragmatic complaints that can equally be countered with emotional arguments focused on the “threat” to society that drug use poses. Feel free to browse Stop the Drug War.org or DrugLibrary.org for collections of arguments for drug legalization (or thinly disguised arguments for policy “reform”). Also browse the Drug Enforcement Administration website. Their Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization brochure summarizes our government’s official rebuttal to the drug debate. Unfortunately, its ten “facts” fail to address the fundamental constitutional issues and simply strings together ten pragmatic arguments that prey on the public’s fear of crime and terrorism (nice picture on bottom of page). Previous: Drinking Age -- Next: Education |
