Posted on 06/11/2003 3:11:47 AM PDT by yonif
My brother is a drug addict.
I’ve been told that’s something I should be ashamed of – that one is supposed to speak of such things in a whisper. There are a lot of emotions running through my mind, but I don’t feel ashamed. I know I feel angry, and while most of that is aimed at my brother, I’ve saved some of it for myself and a significant amount for the ridiculous government policies that have helped turn one person’s problem into something much bigger.
I’ve only recently begun to call myself a Libertarian. Although the label is new, it turns out that most of my instinctive beliefs were right in line with the Libertarian way of thinking – I just hadn’t realized it. And my instinct about drugs in this country is just one example.
In the back of my mind I always wondered why drugs should be illegal. How could the government, in its esteemed wisdom, not heed the lesson learned by the prohibition of alcohol? But really – who was I to question the all-powerful Feds? They had to know better than I what would work. How irresponsible of me to think that currently-illegal drugs should be bought and sold at the corner drug store. How so against my strict, conservative upbringing that would be.
Think of the number of people who would use drugs who don’t use them now. Think of the "drug bars" where people would go get high and then possibly drive home. Think of the cost to society of rehabilitating all these drug users when they regret having gotten hooked. Think of how different life would be – seeing advertisements for the best price on a gram of coke in your local newspaper, or needing to stock up on Ecstasy before your annual Christmas party.
Yes, that would be strange. But then I think about it some more. How would the gangs support themselves? Where would my tax dollars go, the ones that are now spent on the "War on Drugs"? What would the police officers do with less crime and all that time on their hands? What would the drug lords do if they’re forced to enter the competitive, efficient market as legitimate suppliers of a legal product?
In the past, these were all somewhat big, impersonal questions. I could think about them in the abstract, and mostly put them out of my mind. Now they’re not so impersonal any longer. I have a new, probably not so unique perspective, and rather than changing my instinctive beliefs it has strengthened them.
There’s the theoretical argument – that it is not the government’s place to make laws on drug use. That’s certainly true. But there is more to it. If only our government believed in and followed the physician’s maxim – "first, do no harm." Yes, drugs themselves are harmful. But it’s the illegality of drugs that makes them exponentially more of a problem. One doesn’t have to spend $200 a day to fuel an alcohol problem, but a drug problem can easily reach that level. And when one needs that kind of money, quite often one has to resort to theft to get it. This means that more people become innocent victims of what should really only be someone else’s personal problem.
I love my little brother. We grew up in a large, wonderful family, but he and I were especially close. When I wasn’t at my own athletic events, I was cheering him on at his. He’s lived with me off and on over the years. His only child is my namesake. He’s very smart and well-read, and has a great sense of humor. While he never made a lot of himself professionally, he’s the type of guy who will stop and help you if your car is broken down by the side of the road. But there comes a point when the only way to help someone is to stop trying to help him, and that time has come.
I don’t consider my brother a victim of drugs. To me, the term victim implies innocence, and while many mental health professionals will tell you drug abusers are the innocent victims of a mental health issue, I don’t agree. We have choices to make and the first time you choose to use drugs you’ve made your choice. The risk of addiction vs. whatever pleasure you may derive momentarily.
Dealing with this latest family drama has hit home for me in more than just the obvious way. While the personal concerns are first and foremost, it has also served as an important touchstone in my embrace of my Libertarian beliefs. For I can now stand up and truly say that I still support the idea that each person must be responsible for his or her own actions, no matter the cost. We simply can’t rely on others, especially the government, to prevent or to solve our problems. And if we do, we pay the price.
My brother’s addiction has cost me a great deal – emotionally as well as financially. I can handle that. But it makes me think about others who aren’t as well equipped to deal with similar problems. It makes me think about how our government’s involvement has turned the drug problem into a true national nightmare, and it makes me think about all the other nightmares that currently exist or are in the making.
I used to laugh at the saying "if having guns is criminal, then only criminals will have guns." That couldn’t be true, could it? Our government would prevent that, right? Now I realize it’s only partially true. Criminals will have guns, and people willing to deal with criminals will have guns, and so the criminals will have a lot of the guns and a lot of the money, and the rest of us will be unarmed and frightened. And I don’t even want to think about the tax dollars to be spent on the "War on Weapons."
This all drives home the many ways my thinking has changed recently, and the amount of courage I now have to stand up for my newly identified beliefs. I have to say the most fun part about my learning curve in the past several months has been laughing at my own ignorance. Talk about being brought down to earth. Each day brings a new revelation, a new understanding of the impact of the government on my life. I’m astounded, appalled, and at times even sadly amused. But I’ll no longer be apathetic.
Allison Brown [send her mail] is a financial officer in Maryland.
How many boys who join gangs have fathers?
How many women have babies out of wedlock because the men they sleep with put a higher priority on 'freedom" (i.e. drugs, alcohol, partying) than in working hard marrying and caring for their families?
What is overlooked here is that since drugs became "acceptable" in the 1960s and 1970s, that drug laws are rarely enforced at all. Most of the "drug possession" convictions are plea bargains for other crimes by a court overwhelmed by other crimes. (plea bargains for pushers, plea bargains for DUI, plea bargains for theft, plea bargain for assault of a girlfriend or her kid).
Legalizing drugs will "normalize" the behavior, making it epidemic.
A better argument is the way that Mayor Guilliani cleaned up NYC. the previous mayor argued not to bother with minor crimes, since major crimes were so widespread. But Rudi promoted the idea of "broken windows".
When windows are broken, when graffiti is all over, it sends the message to the neighborhood that disorder is allowed, and that the thugs are in charge. Good people move out, and those who can't move out lock themselves in their houses and apartment, virtual prisoners of the disorder.
Young boys see these rich thugs as role models, perpetuating the problem. After all, to thirteen year old boys with no other role models, a rich pim or pusher is more glamourous than working hard, studying etc. And those boys who actually try to study and work hard are looked on as "sell outs" (the real reason is that the gangs know that these boys are right, and recognize that good students prove by their very life that what they are doing is wrong). Disorder sent the message: you can do anything you want, and you won't be punished. So the sociopaths and their emulators ruled.
Rudi, by promoting arresting "minor" crimes sent a message: this won't be tolorated. Those arrested for minor crimes got the message: get arrested for graffiti, or breaking a window, and you know you'll be punished for breaking into a house, beating up a little old lady for her social security check, or shooting a rival gangmember.
The way out of this is to make drugs unacceptable. Getting high or drunk is unacceptable.
This lady's brother could be cured if there were no drugs. But he also could be cured if he lived in a world where drugs were unacceptable. Right now, the main problem to our druggies in staying sober is their old friends who "visit" and entice them back to taking drugs. (a sober ex user is a threat to users, who know they are doing wrong).
If this lady could not only have the law enforce drug treatment for her brother, but be able to arrest his "friends" when they come back to seduce her brother back to drugs, it would be better. What happens now is that the druggies are back out on the street within hours, able to beat up, shoot, or burn down the house of those who reported them to the cops.
So the good are imprisoned, the good are seduced into ruining their lives, and the children and teens are brought up to think drug using is a fun thing without consequences....
There's no question that intoxicants are capable of doing great harm. The word "toxic" is built right into the name! But, as the article notes, government involvement has made matters far worse, just as it did in the Twenties, when city streets ran with blood from gangland warfare over the sale of alcohol.
A law, even a law with the most wholesome of aims, will do more harm than good if enough people decide that it's acceptable to violate it, as LadyDoc notes. How large a fraction is "enough"? Axelrod and Hofstadter's work seems to imply that it's about 2%. Far more Americans than that -- at least 12%, by some recent surveys -- think the drug laws are inane and should be repealed.
BUT...
That doesn't mean the problem of drug abuse is completely intractable. Early 19th century America had a horrible problem with drunkenness. The typical tippler would consume more than two quarts of his favorite guzzle each day! Public order was very much at stake, and legal attempts to deal with the problem failed miserably.
What improved matters was the Christian temperance movement, which gave birth to both the Young Men's Christian Association and the Women's Christian Temperance Union. The WCTU didn't quite adopt the Lysistrata tactic...at least, not publicly...but it is noteworthy that these groups succeeded in reducing alcohol consumption per capita in the U.S. by more than two-thirds between 1835 and 1865. (See Charles Sykes's book A Nation Of Victims for more details.)
Sometimes the old ways really are the best ones.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Provide evidence for your claim.
Legalizing drugs will "normalize" the behavior, making it epidemic.
Was post-Prohibition alcohol use "epidemically" larger than its use during Prohibition?
The way out of this is to make drugs unacceptable. Getting high or drunk is unacceptable.
Is getting drunk on the legal drug alcohol now regarded as acceptable? If not, why would the legality of other drugs make them seem acceptable? If so, do you support banning alcohol to make it unacceptable?
If so, that just makes it easier for me to get the last word. ;-)
Do a google search to see the percentage of arrests that arise only from drug violations.
So I don't know what you are advocating the Federales do further in this war
Shoot anyone suspected of possessing marijuana on sight?
[LadyDoc, one second after posting] D'OH! Why doesn't this stupid site have an edit button? I just showed how stupid my position is -- by my own argument, I MUST demand the return of alcohol prohibition!
Every attempt to measure the matter at the time when the evidence was most available (i.e. the years immediately following repeal of Prohibition I) shows that drinking actually went down (for one thing, once alcohol could again be shipped without the need for concealment, the market shifted from high-proof booze to low-proof beer and wine).
During the 1980s, advocates of Prohibition II seem to have undertaken a concerted effort to sweep this inconvenient fact down the memory hole.
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.