Drugs are a charged subject everywhere. Longtime readers know that although I personally abstain from drugs and generally eschew the company of users, I think they should be 100% legal.
Few people consider how arbitrary the current prohibition is; up until the 1920s, heroin and cocaine were both perfectly legal and easily obtainable over the counter. Some people abused them, just like some today abuse fat and sugar (because theyre enjoyable).
But drugs are no more of a problem than anything else; life is full of problems. In fact, life isnt just full of problems; life is problems. What is a problem? Its simply the situation of having to choose between two or more alternatives. Personally, I believe in people being free to choose, and I rigorously shun the company of people who dont.
Hysteria and propaganda aside, the fact is that most recreational drugs pose less of a health problem than alcohol, nicotine, or simple lack of exercise.
Conan Doyles Sherlock Holmes (of whom Im a great fan) was an aficionado of opium products. Sigmund Freud enjoyed cocaine. Churchill is supposed to have drunk a quart of whiskey daily. Dr. William Halsted, the father of modern surgery and co-founder of Johns Hopkins University, was a regular user throughout his long and illustrious career, which included inventing local anesthesia after injecting cocaine into his skin.
Insofar as recreational drugs present a problem, it arises partly from overuse, which is not only arbitrary but can be true of absolutely anything. The problem comes, however, mainly from the fact that theyre illegal.
Alcohol provides the classic example. It wasnt much of a problem in the US before the enactment of Prohibition in 1920, and it hasnt been one since its repeal in 1933. Making a product illegal artificially and unnecessarily turns both users and suppliers into criminals.
Because illegality makes any product vastly more expensive than it would be in a free market, some users resort to crime to finance their habits. Because of the risks and artificially reduced supply, the profits to the suppliers are necessarily hugenot the simple businessmans returns to be had from legal products.
Just as Prohibition of the 20s turned the Mafia from a small underground group of thugs into big business, the War on Drugs has done precisely the same thing for drug dealers. Its completely insane and totally counterproductive.
Frankly, if you want to worry about drugs, it would be more appropriate to be concerned about the scores of potent psychiatric drugs from Ritalin to Prozac that are actively pushed in the US, often turning users into anything from zombies, to space cadets, to walking time bombs. But thats another story more relevant to address at some pointlikely years in the future when its again time to consider whether US drug stocks are buys.
The whole drill impresses me as being so perversely stupid as to border on the surreal. Insofar as the Drug War diminishes the supply of product, it raises prices. The higher the prices, the higher the profits. And the higher the profits, the greater the inducement to youngsters anxious to get into the game. The more successful it is in imprisoning people, the more people it draws into the business.
Meanwhile, a trumpeted success tends to increase funding from the US government. Some of that money succeeds in driving up prices to the benefit of producers, but a lot of it finds its way into the pockets of officials. That further entrenches corruption at all levels.
The only answer to the War on Drugs is the same as that to the equally stupid and destructive War on Demon Rum fought during the 20sa repeal of prohibition.
These are arguments entirely apart from the most important one, which deals with ethics. The question is really whether you have a right to control your own body and what you ingest. Theres little question that caffeine, cocaine, nicotine, heroin, alcohol, marijuana, sugar and a thousand other things arent good for you, at least not in quantity. But I cant see how thats anybodys business but your own. Once it becomes a matter of state concern, then everything becomes an equally legitimate subject of state attention. Which is pretty much where we are todaywell on the way to a police state.
#1: Vicomte13 To: Deckard (#0)
They hear those words bandied about, but they know from their own experience that it is not true. They know, generally from personal experience, that cigarettes are really just pretty much smoking a cup of coffee - that it's bad for the lungs over time and hard to quit, and it smells, but nothing more.
They know that a lot of alcohol will get you bombed, but that a reasonable amount is just pleasant, and part of a meal. People know that alcohol doesn't affect the mind much, until you've had a lot of it. They know this from personal experience.
And they know - huge numbers from personal experience, others from looking at the world and seeing and knowing stoners - that marijuana is a strong drug that affects the mind - and the other stuff is very powerful. They know how addictive these things are, because they see that once people start using them, even if those things are illegal and your life can be ruined from getting caught with them, they just don't stop using.
People don't want their children's minds or records ruined by association with illegal drugs, so they support the legal prohibition.
All through the article, it talks about how illegality drives the price up. That's true, but that's because people are addicted and won't (can't) stop, so they keep buying it EVEN THOUGH it's too expensive and dangerous to get, as opposed to just stopping with the drugs and going back to alcohol.
The people will commit the crimes and run the risk tells you that pot, just pot, is stronger than, and different from - and more hotly desired - than alcohol or tobacco.
We all know that it is, so we disregard the arguments that it isn't.
And in a republic, that's how it goes: the people get to set the rules. They have. The drug users need to get in line and stop using.
If they won't - and they won't because they're addicted, or defiant, or both - then the polity will do what polities always do when people defy them: they'll crush the defiant. That's why the drug laws are harsh. It isn't surprising that states full of wastrels vote to permit marijuana use against national law.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-02-13 11:14:18 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
No, the question is why is society forced to support your sorry ass with our tax dollars when you're sick, hungry and out of work because of what you ingest.
Now, once we are no longer forced to do that, maybe we'll consider legalization.
misterwhite posted on 2017-02-13 12:05:49 Reply Private Reply