One of the main premises used when these laws are asked for is that the government has the duty to protect individuals from themselves, irregardless of whether or not the individuals in question desire this interference. The real question then seems to be not whether drugs are harmful to the user but whether the government has the right to prohibit their use.
Our present criminal justice system acknowledges the distinction between crimes that are malum in se, those that are bad in themselves like rape, murder, or robbery, and crimes that are malum prohibitum. Malum prohibitum crimes are those that are wrong because they are prohibited by the authorities, like sex, gambling, rock-n-roll, and the sales and use of non-prescription psychoactive drugs. One of the other differences in crimes of malum prohibitum is that there is not usually an injured second party, and any second party involved is a willing participant.
To the arguments that people under the influence of drugs will commit malum in se offenses, there are already laws concerning those offenses, and being under the influence of any drug, including alchohol, should never be allowed as an excuse for commiting malum in se offenses--period.
Malum prohibitum offenses, in the case of use and sales of drugs, differ depending on the period and locale in question. In twentieth century America, the government has arbitrarily drawn some lines, and made regulatory offenses concerning certain substances and the people who dispense them. One sign that drug trafficking is a regulatory offense, and not morally wrong, is that the same pills that can be legally purchased in a drug store cannot be legally purchased on the sidewalk outside the store although the drugs being purchased will be used for the same basic human need.
Man has always desired respite from his problems, and large pharmaceutical, alchohol, and illicit-drug industries have sprung up to cater to this need. Much money and effort has gone into the design of new and better drugs, many to combat psychological, and not merely physical pain.
An illustration of the dichotomy of American society's acceptance and intolerance of drug use is: A CEO with hostile takeover problems at work, and rebellious teens at home, is able to receive a prescription for valium or other mood altering drugs to combat anxiety or depression, and help him cope with reality, and no one bats an eye. A ghetto inhabitant, in near poverty, and with little hope of long-term improvement, can't even smoke a joint to help relieve his depression without incurring the additional mental trauma of being busted. It seems ludicrous that people who will not get a dental filling without making the world around them disappear with the help of laughing gas, will then want to deny somones else's chemical respite from totally consuming psychological pain.
In the absence of psychological pain, there is still nothing morally wrong with recreational use of drugs. Man seems to have a basic need for modes of consciousness other than the normal, and about the time that magic turned into religion, this search for otherness turned into the quest for the Other, with religions embracing chemical and other means to reach other modes of thought, or altered states of reality. Governments back then knew better than to try outlawing drug use, since it was woe to the King who angered his priests.
If illicit drug use were legalized, the billions of dollars that are spent on their acquisition, and in support of drug law enforcement could be used for education programs into how drugs really work, and into social programs that raise the standard of living to acceptable levels to help alleviate the feelings of hopelessness that many people feel. People should be taught that everything has it's proper time and place, and that being a productive citizen is a worthwhile cause. People should be made aware of why it is pretty stupid, in terms of personal self-worth and national competiveness, to try to educate yourself or perform productively on the job while under the influence of drugs.
Although society has given government the mandate to protect it's welfare and safety, the enactment of laws to protect one from oneself is stretching the intent of that mandate to its illogical extreme. All drugs and their use should not be prohibited. The only government involvement should be FDA purity checks and seeing that the taxes collected go to rehabilitation and education programs in an effort to overcome society's overwheming need for drugs. Lack of prohibition would free up police, courts, and prisons to more effectively deal with malum in se offenses. Lack of prohibition would also help lower the number of malum in se offenses that goes with the illicit use of drugs. The FBI statistics for 1989 indicate the the majority of murders in the three U.S. cities with the highest murder rate, Atlanta, Detroit, and Washington, DC, were drug related.
It seems to be past time to quit making criminals of individuals who want to temporarily alter their perception of reality, either to escape pain or for their own personal quests. Quite frankly, it's none of the governments damn business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
Questions or comments about these Web pages? Send e-mail to
dave@reststop.net