Perhaps we should establish this from the very start: I don’t do drugs. I’ve never had marijuana, LSD or cocaine. I seldom drink alcohol, never drink coffee and avoid taking Tylenol.
I wrote a winning DARE essay in sixth grade on why one shouldn't do drugs. <br/>Since then, though, I've decided those reasons only justify why I (personally) have never been high.&#160;Since then, though, I've decided those reasons only justify why I (personally) have never been high.
Since then, though, I’ve decided those reasons only justify why I (personally) have never been high.
As far as I’m concerned, what you do is up to you.
Of course, many instances exist in which I do care what you do.
I care that you pick up your trash and that you drive on the right side of the road, but only because those things can affect me.
Maybe this makes me selfish, or maybe it makes me a champion of freedom.
In any case, your smoking of marijuana does not particularly affect me, thus, I don’t particularly care.
It could, I suppose, if you’re trying to drive under the drug’s influence. Certainly that should not be legal.
The issue of legality brings us to our country’s current drug policy and trying to make some sense out of it. Figuring out the basis for a drug’s legal status is difficult.
We must not outlaw substances based on what one might do while under their influence.
If that were the case, alcohol would be prohibited. Nor do we outlaw them based on what a person is likely to do.
People seem no more likely to drive, operate heavy machinery or yell at their child while on marijuana than when drinking.
We also don’t make a judgment call based on how addictive the substance is. If we did, nicotine would have gone off the market long ago.
Why we have the rules we do is probably the result of politics more than anything.
Politicians like to smoke and drink, but it is the youth and the poor who most often get high.
We talked in my introductory sociology class about how the punishments for crack and cocaine (essentially the same drug) are drastically different.
Cocaine users are generally wealthy and often white. They get the lighter sentences.
The users of the more harshly-punished drug: minorities and the poor. Coincidence? Politics.
Politics and prejudice.
I’m not saying some worthy reasons for the rules that are in place don’t exist.
Drugs, generally speaking, aren’t good for one’s health. Shooting chemicals into the veins probably isn’t the best thing for longevity.
But if the pure thought of that – or of black lungs or hangovers – isn’t enough to stop a person, then the law probably isn’t either.
The problem with the law is not just that it’s too political or that it is ineffective, but that it’s effect is actually somewhat harmful.
Drugs are a major problem because of the gang activity and violence associated with them.
Outlawing something that results in killings and burglary might seem to make sense.
However, the reason people fight over drugs, the reason they’re so expensive that people steal them and steal to get them, is that they are outlawed.
If trading could take place in the open and prison were not at stake, the situation would not be so deadly.
Speaking of which: The U.S. Department of Justice reports (on its Web site) about 25 percent of prisoners are behind bars for drug-related offenses.
Not only is it rather ridiculous to lock up people who have no intention of doing harm to society (only to their own bodies), it is exorbitantly expensive to do so.
The statisticians at the Justice Department note incarceration costs more than $60 per prisoner, per day.
That’s paid for by you, me and grandma Myrtle. So drugs are indeed a cost to society – but largely because they’re illegal.
Revamping our drug policy could actually turn this huge expenditure into a source of government income.
By legalizing drugs, the government could tax transactions involving them.
It seems we’ve been so wrapped up in politics and a false sense of moral superiority that someone forgot to look at the economics of drugs.
Now, if you have a really, really good memory, have recently discussed this with me or happen to be a die-hard fan of this biweekly column, you may recall that I am in favor of a public smoking ban.
(I can hear the “boos” from the pro-drug crowd already.) Sorry guys, but like I said, I support your freedom, as long as it doesn’t interfere with mine.
Though I’m arguing for your right to do drugs, I don’t support you smoking on the sidewalk or driving under the influence of anything mind- or body-altering.
Perhaps that will ease the fear for those of you whose brains are quickly filling with images of lawlessness and hippie anarchy.
I don’t imagine Baldwin City will become an Amsterdam, nor do I think The Salt Mine will start serving up heroin or any mixture containing Clorox bleach.
There’s simply not much of a market for that, no matter what the law allows.
After all, it wasn’t the police officer in the DARE program who scared a sixth-grader away from drugs, but rather the pictures of bloodshot eyes, empty stares and smoke-stained lungs she brought along with her.