Posted on 02/20/2003 8:03:55 AM PST by MrLeRoy
There has long been a call to legalize marijuana. Quite noticeably, the effort has been spearheaded by "potheads" more concerned with their next high than social justice. This has led to a tendency for polarization in the debate. That's why
I, the author of last year's article, "A Straight Edge Manifesto," have decided to enter the ring. But I won't stop at marijuana like those sissy "potheads." I say legalize all drugs.
There is no doubt in my mind that using drugs is a bad idea. But just because something is a bad idea, does not mean it should be against the law. The litmus test for government intervention should be, "harm to others." If an action harms others, the authorities should act. If it stands to harm no one but the individual acting, then the authorities should stand aside. The government should concern itself with dangerous felons: murderers, rapists, vandals, arsonists, thieves and the like. Any effort directed at victimless crimes draws our energy away from confronting real dangers. It would be more efficient and more worthwhile to concentrate focus just on real threats.
Drug dealers are currently a threat; yes. That's because they're already looking at jail time, so why not add a few counts of murder? We should learn from Prohibition. Prohibition created the very circumstances that allowed Al Capone to become a violent offender. With alcohol legal, Budweiser and Heineken aren't waging a street war. If we legalized drugs, drug dealers might still be scum, but at least not the kind of scum that shoot people.
Drug users are a threat to no one but themselves. There's no need to punish them because they're already punishing themselves with the natural consequences of their actions. If destroying their minds isn't enough to stop them, then no amount of prison time will. Besides, it's better to associate reasons to "just say no" with the real reasons to avoid it. If people think only of artificial sanctions that we impose, then they aren't thinking about the real dangers of drug use. And then, do we really want to waste our time hunting down anyone who took "a hit," only to decide they didn't like it? Or even a habitual "pothead" who stays in his or her basement, bothering no one?
As a matter of fact, I believe that legalizing drugs will actually reduce drug use. Without a sense of "forbidden fruit," many people just won't feel the need to try drugs. Habitual drug users will act as examples to others. Mothers can point to the middle-aged stoner and say, "See, Johnny, do you want to end up like him?" When a man dies of a heroin overdose, anyone with half a brain should think, "Gee, maybe heroin is a bad idea." Plus, with no possible legal repercussions for admitting to drug use, addicts can look for help quitting that much easier.
Still, some regulation may be necessary. The FDA can print Surgeon General's Warnings on "dime-bags" to make sure people are making an educated decision.
Those substances that are smoked - tobacco, marijuana and crack - will have to be banned in public, because the second hand smoke forces others to smoke with them. Thus, smokers can be allowed their habit in their homes or in restaurants or bars that condone them, but will be fined heavily for smoking anywhere else.
But here's the crux: if anyone gets behind a wheel or commits a violent crime while under the influence, he or she will be held completely and utterly responsible for his or her own actions and prosecuted as if he committed the crime while sober. Think that's harsh? Well, so is killing someone while driving drunk or almost beating someone to death because you weren't in control of your own faculties. These people chose to get drunk or high knowing full well that it would change their behavior. It shouldn't be an excuse. That way, we can oppose those who become violent and ignore those who don't. Even if the figure is outrageously high, something like 70 percent of drug users becoming violent offenders, then that's 30 percent of our original effort that we've saved.
Ending the War on Drugs saves time, money and effort originally spent on a lost cause. Letting things happen as they will happen will also decrease drug use much more effectively than direct opposition.
Right out of the Libertarian red book handbook. And a college Libertarian, no less. Save us!
So you think the effects of drug abuse are a well guarded secret?
Just like winos?
You have to go to DU if you want that. Of course, theirs lasts a lot longer than 3 minutes. (24/7)
Right out of the Libertarian red book handbook. And a college Libertarian, no less. Save us!
No rebuttal, I see. Color me unsurprised.
So you think the effects of drug abuse are a well guarded secret?
More so than they would be if drugs were legal.
Just like winos?
Winos' drug is legal and they are often readily identifiable as such; thanks for supporting my point.
Doing my best Bill O'Reilly:
I just don't buy it. I'm not buying it, OK? I'll let you have the last word.
I have notcied that too, on many occasions. One poster actually stated that by not making drugs illegal, we are "forcing" him to accept our opinion.
*(crickets)*
That's their right, but if so they should be upfront about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.