Food For Thought

Forget taxes, forget medical and industrial uses. The fundamental issue of the drug legalization debate is the individual's right to absolute sovereignty over the self. Drug use is a personal choice and merits the same Constitutional protection as freedom of speech and religion.

Stephen Chapman wrote in his 10 November op-ed that the Dutch have made the use of cannabis "a matter of personal choice." He notes that "the percentage of people in the Netherlands who use cannabis in a given month has been stable since 1987," and that "pot smoking is about half as common among Dutch teen-agers as it is among American kids." The Dutch have had similar success controlling the use of harder drugs, without an increase in crime.

The Dutch approach contrasts sharply with the disastrous attempts at drug eradication in the United States. Drug laws have created a lucrative economy of more compact (easier to smuggle), more dangerous forms of drugs (more bang for the buck). Misinformation has exacerbated the problem by breeding ignorance and disrespect for authority. What was a minor public health problem (isolated drug abuse) is now a major social problem: robbery, burglary, gang warfare, over-burdened courts, property forfeiture, unfair prison sentences, prison crowding, police corruption, and inner-city deterioration.

Despite the drug war-spawned problems, many people use drugs responsibly - some recreationally, others medically or as part of spiritual practices. Prudent drug use can improve one's mental health and enrich one's spiritual life. Government sophistry to the contrary, drug dangers are easily minimized.

Drugs have always been a part of human culture. The key to control is not prohibition but incorporation into the mainstream. Legalization is only the first step in incorporation, and must take place gradually. Emphasis on education and personal responsibility is required; until then, responsible users will remain in the minority.

Some common arguments against drug legalization are refuted as follows:

Drugs effects are not real

Many drug effects are indistinguishable from states attained spontaneously or through religious practice or meditation; other drug effects are fun. If a certain activity makes one happy, that emotion is no less meaningful because it came from a drug. This reasoning also applies to other pastimes: how real is a movie or a novel compared to 'real life'? Why not let the individual decide?

Drugs are a crutch

While non-medical forms of drugs are not essential to the sustenance of life, neither is religion, entertainment, privacy, etc. Life would be pretty bleak without any of those 'non-essentials'. Let the individual decide what is necessary.

Drugs are dangerous

Some are dangerous, other are not. In a free society, accurate information about safe drugs and methods of use would be freely available. In such a society, people would make informed decisions about drugs the same as they do today for such risky activities as car travel or hazardous sports.

Drugs are addictive

Drugs have been used for millenia; only recently has the use of highly purified, highly concentrated forms become common.

Drug users harm others

Laws currently in place already address driving under the influence and public intoxication. Workplace impairment is easily detected using simple tests of dexterity or reaction time; tests that detect metabolites of drugs ingested weeks or months in the past do not. The issue is public safety, not publicly acceptable lifestyle.

Drug benefits:

The Declaration of Independence holds as self-evident truth the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Drug prohibition violates these rights. Control of one's mind and body is a private matter, outside the mandate of government. Until drug prohibition ends, individual freedoms will diminish and social problems will worsen.