Resize 
Related
- Response to SSDP column
- Letter: War on drugs an exercise in futility
- Letter: Southwestern Virginia can stop "Opium Brides"
TOPICS: drug war, drug policy
Since I have become the leader of the Virginia Tech chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, I have continually encountered the same question: Are you pro-drug? Individuals make the assumption that the fact that I oppose ineffective anti-drug legislation somehow implies that I advocate drug use.
In a sense, I find such an assumption sort of confusing. Does being pro-choice imply that one is pro-abortion? Does supporting one’s right to eat fatty foods from McDonald’s suggest that you are pro-obesity? The simple answer is no. In both of those scenarios, we have acknowledged the fact that a person has the right do what she pleases with his or her own body, so long as nobody else is hurt.
Let us briefly consider the purpose of the law. We have laws to prevent people from murdering or raping one another. We have laws to prevent theft and unethical business practices. In each of those scenarios, the law serves to protect people from what other people might do to them. There is a victim and a victimizer. When it comes to drug use, however, the victim and the victimizer are the same person. The one who snorts the coke or shoots up the heroin is the same person who ultimately suffers because of it. So whom are drug laws protecting you from: yourself? It seems the overall purpose of drug laws is to protect people from consuming products that are detrimental to their health. If that is the case, why not pass a law that bans people from eating Twinkies? After all, eating too many sugary foods can also lead to obesity, diabetes and decreased life expectancy. Why not mandate that everybody exercise at least three times a week? Aside from the fact that such laws would be expensive and difficult to enforce, they probably would not be very effective.
Leave a comment 19 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
How about this then, when you take certain drugs you can unwilling make choices that can hurt other people, like DUI. Then there are hallucenagins (Spelling bad I know) that can cause you to physically harm other people, etc. So the laws are there to protect other people and with the exception of maybe Marijuana, which I think should be like alcohol (Certain age, no driving) the drug laws are just fine.
When I eat a burger from McDonalds there is no chance I will harm anyone but myself.
Reply to this Top
Fault lies with the abuser, not the substance being abused. Does it make more sense to blame someone for choosing to drive drunk and beat his kids, or to pass blame to the alcohol he drinks? Clearly, the person should be liable for such poor choices. Alcohol is merely a scapegoat; unlike a person, it has no motive, no willpower, and does not make decisions. The same principle can be applied to all drugs. Moreover, keeping drugs illegal implies that there is only one solution for such abusers: arrest, fines, and imprisonment. Would society not benefit more from rehabilitating the person rather than punishing the drug?
Thus, drugs present no direct harm to anyone other than the user. By the way, you're wrong to assert that obesity presents no indirect harm to others; last year national news reported a morbidly obese woman had fallen and crushed her 2-year-old nephew to death. Comparing the incident to someone who drives drunk, for example, we find that McDonald's and drugs are merely scapegoats, as the person is clearly at fault in both cases.
Reply to this Top
Mark, that was very well written. I agree that drug prohibition makes getting help for drug users harder, and would add that it also makes the drugs themselves more dangerous, as we have no control over the potency or purity of illegal drugs. A far more serious consequence of prohibition is that it funds criminal organizations the world over, as is being demonstrated in Mexico where there have been over 15,000 drug market related murders since December 2006 when Mexico's President called in the army to combat the drug cartels. This type of "war on drugs" approach will never succeed, and it's time to start looking into alternatives.
Reply to this Top
Chris, I agree that people can do dangerous things while on drugs, and sometimes they even hurt or kill themselves or others. We understand that putting everyone in jail who uses alcohol just because every year thousands of people die in alcohol related car crashes makes no sense. Why is this not true for other drugs, such as hallucinogens? Prohibition certainly doesn't stop people from doing dangerous things while on drugs. Our efforts would be much better spent trying to educate drug users on safe use, and saving the criminal justice system for people who actually commit crimes with victims other than themselves, much like we now do with alcohol.
Reply to this Top
I like turtles.
Reply to this Top
I disagree
I doubt your love of turtles
Reply to this Top
Turtles are AWESOME !! i love them too !!
Top
In response to Chris:
Certainly, one should be accountable for anything he does under the influence, whether they be acts of violence, driving, etc. However, the actual consumption of the drugs should not be a crime. Anything damage person does under the influence is a result of his choice to do that drug, and is thus something he is accountable for.
Reply to this Top
Under most circumstances people can argue that Marijuana should be legal. However, I believe that it should also be a common consensus that drugs such as crack, cocaine, heroin, meth, acid, and other such drugs should still be illegal PERIOD.
We don't need people running around America with track lines and missing teeth who pull tricks just to make a buck for another hit.
By no means is the anti-drug war pro-drug, but there is at least the current movement that marijuana should be a regulated substance (such as alcohol).
Reply to this Top
I would make the argument that the more dangerous the drug, the MORE of it need for it to be legalized, so it can be more easily regulated. For example, if Heroin was legalized, it could be heavily regulated. Laws could be set to ensure that it was not sold to children... a guarantee which cannot be procured from street dealers. Legalization of hard drugs also takes them out of the hands of gangs and cartels, and put them in the hands of businesses which can tax them.
Reply to this Top
If any of these things were legalized, what makes you think that there still wouldn't be rampant selling of drugs by dealers as opposed to solely legit businesses? I am by no means an expert nor am I interested in the outcome of this, but there is no guarantee that legalized drugs would reduce dealer influence. I'm sure that even in places where it is legal, there exist dealers for stronger stuff than what businesses may sell or something to that effect. Point is, legalization can't guarantee a thing about street level dealings.
Top
So has criminalizing those hard drugs caused them to go away? Have the problems stopped? Or have they gotten worse? Why do you want to put the regulation and purity of hard drugs in the hands of criminals? We have people running around America now with track lines and missing teeth who pull tricks just to make a buck for another hit -- and that's largely because drugs are illegal and not regulated. And as a bonus, we have drug dealers shooting it out in the streets over the profitable black market.
Legalization won't solve all the drug problems, but it'll solve the drug WAR problems.
Oh, and if heroin was legal, I still wouldn't have the slightest interest in using it.
Reply to this Top
There already ARE people running around American with track lines and missing teeth who pull tricks. And those people are less likely to seek treatment if they have to worry about going to jail. They also have to pay street prices inflated by the drug war, which means they have to stoop to theft and prostitution to afford their habits. Ending prohibition solves these problems.
Reply to this Top
Pro-choice is wrong. All fetuses deserve a chance at life!
Reply to this Top
Top 9 Arguments Against Abortion:
1. Cost of Abortions
2. Backstreet Abortions Increase
3. Parallels between Abortion & Slavery
4. Indisputable Medical Evidence - the Unborn baby is a Human Being
5. Abortion Aggravates Child Abuse
6. Even Legal Abortions are Unsafe
7. Increase in Breast Cancer
8. The Bible Declares the Sanctity of Human Life
9. The Overpopulation Argument
Reply to this Top
first drugs, then sodomy, gay marriage, and all the rest of the sins. I hope you repent.
Reply to this Top
Wait, can i smoke a j yet? Or will i still get arrested? Cause I don't like going to jail...
Reply to this Top
Anonymous wrote:
"If any of these things were legalized, what makes you think that there still wouldn't be rampant selling of drugs by dealers as opposed to solely legit businesses? I am by no means an expert nor am I interested in the outcome of this, but there is no guarantee that legalized drugs would reduce dealer influence. I'm sure that even in places where it is legal, there exist dealers for stronger stuff than what businesses may sell or something to that effect. Point is, legalization can't guarantee a thing about street level dealings."
Well, if alcohol is any indication, then yes it can. During prohibition, Alcohol was only obtained through illegal means (organized crime syndicates). After prohibition ended, the sale of alcohol was taken over by legitimate businesses. Why would somebody choose to buy a drug by illegal means as opposed to legal means? You may not know this, but once upon a time Cocaine and Heroin were sold in corner stores by legitimate companies. Who is to say that cannot happen again now?
Reply to this Top
http://www.sloshspot.com/blog/11-13-2009/If-Marijuana-Production-Were-Legal-Projected-Tax-Revenues-by-State-245 It contains some interesting figures.
Reply to this Top