Government shouldn’t regulate morality

Friday, June 5, 1998

Government shouldn’t regulate morality

LEGALIZATION: Legalizing drugs would let society focus on real
social ills

Drugs are horrible things: parasitic substances that prey on
society and tear families apart. Victims are claimed everyday by
the unfeeling and addictive claws of illicit pills, needles and
powders. My father was one such victim, and common sense dictates
that, as the son of an addict who went through untold horrors to
overcome a disease that had infested my family, I would support all
manners of drug regulation to keep those substances out of the
hands of other unsuspecting, weak-willed individuals so that they
wouldn’t hurt as much as I was.

Well, that would be wrong. I never cared much for common sense
and I care even less for government regulation of the drug
industry. And today, despite what I’ve been through, I am saying
why you should support everyone’s basic right to buy a joint, stick
a needle or snort some crack, by discussing the advantages of
decriminalization – more room in prisons, more money to solve our
real social ills and more exercising of our basic personal
liberties – that drug legalization can bring about.

First, there is the basic notion of decriminalization. There are
myriad ways that we, as a society, judge drug addicts. Terms such
as junkies, freeloaders, welchers and parasites are abundant in the
descriptive text detailing how we relate to drug addicts. All of
these terms can be applicable. Some drug users are lower than
garbage (like junkies), some do mooch on the kindness of others and
the kickbacks from the government (like freeloaders and welchers)
and some are truly pieces of pond scum when they do things like
selling drugs to little kids in order to support their own habits
(like parasites). But they should not be referred to as criminals,
per se.

Sure, making drugs available to minors and driving while under
the influence certainly should be illegal along the vein of current
alcohol legislation, but the taking of drug on one’s own personal
time should not be made illegal.

Responsible drug users don’t add to society’s ills when they
smoke marijuana or inject heavier mind-altering substances directly
into their veins (when they do these acts alone). And drug abusers
need help and professional treatment; they don’t need to be
arrested and sent to jail. By criminalizing those who are addicted
to drugs, we are needlessly adding to the obstacles they will have
to overcome to get better. Drug addicts can regale you with tales
of the emotional and mental hell they must weather in order to kick
their habit (and some do not even survive the ordeal). By adding
legal blockades to the process, we are making it that much more
difficult for the addict to get help, and even more people fall off
the wagon – and die needlessly – as a result of it. Needless to
say, decriminalization is in order, if for no other reason than
freeing up our prisons.

According to a 1995 FBI report on the so called "Drug War" being
fought by Washington bigwigs since 1964, 61 percent of federal
prisoners are serving time for some sort of drug offense. More than
six in 10 federal prisoners are filling up already overcrowded jail
cells because the government deems fully conscientious adults who
choose to use mind-altering drugs as inappropriate for society and
better off in jail. A lofty position to be sure, but an ultimately
foolish one. Why is alcohol, one of the most abused drugs in this
country, not criminalized and its users sent to prison in like
fashion? The answer won’t surprise you: the prohibition fiasco of
the 1920s.

I’m sure you’ve read about how the 18th Amendment caused more
problems than it solved. Homicides increased eightfold as rival
underground alcohol merchants murdered each other for monetary
gain, according to the Student Drug War web site. After the 18th
Amendment was repealed, violent crime decreased by more than 65
percent. Apply these numbers to drug users and the message is
clear: You’re putting people in prison who don’t deserve to be
there – but more importantly, you’re keeping people out who do.

Now think for a moment. Who is more dangerous? A rapist or a
drug addict? A murderer or a drug dealer? A child molester or a
drug kingpin? Violent criminals are increasingly being paroled
early to make room for drug abusers because prisons aren’t getting
any larger. Violent felons are the people who deserve to be locked
behind iron gates, not drug users. Unfortunately, Washington
disagrees, because their Holy Drug War is too important for them to
admit to their mistake, and we, as a society, are made to pay – not
only in an increase of violent thugs roaming the streets, but also
in exorbitant amounts of tax dollars we can’t afford to spend.

According to the Student Drug War web site, fully $300 billion
have been spent since 1964 to fight drugs on the domestic front.
That is a lot of money, and for what has it been spent? Can we
truly say we have won the war on drugs? Can we justify this
enormous tax bill by stating that we have wiped drugs from every
street corner and schoolyard? Can we say, with any degree of
certitude, that America is a better and safer place because of it?
No, of course not, because drug-related crimes are on a rise,
occurring as a result of a country too belligerent to regulate, as
they do alcohol, all illicit substances rather than banning them
completely.

According to the FBI, one in three burglaries, robberies and
murders are committed to attain money for drugs. In a regulated
economy, the price of drugs would be substantially lower and people
would be able to afford them. No longer desperate for the cash,
perpetrators would no longer need to commit crimes to gain the
necessary capital to continue their habit. The bottom line is
clear: The War on Drugs doesn’t work, despite the catchiness of
media slogans like "Just Say No to Drugs" and "This is your brain
on drugs. Any questions?" that rob the taxpayers of funds needed
elsewhere.

Just think how many of the embarrassingly underfunded public
schools could be brought up to current standards of educational
excellence, how many welfare recipients could be provided with
desperately needed job training skills, how many violent felons
could be kept behind bars for the rest of their lives, how many
improvements to our laughable judicial system could be implemented,
how many commercial and organizational ventures could be launched
to keep children out of gangs with the $300 billion we’ve spent to
fight a losing battle? Don’t ask, it’ll only make you sick, and
it’ll only remind you how much the violation of your personal
choices are costing you.

The most basic reason drugs should be legalized has to do with
choice, the tenet of those espousing personal liberties. We all
make choices every day and most of them are perfectly legal and
acceptable to those from all sides of the political spectrum. But a
murky thing happens when certain individuals who are powerful
enough in government decide to legislate a certain brand of
goodness, or common sense as it’s sometimes called, for all to
follow.

Thus, things like gambling, prostitution, not wearing seatbelts
or helmets, suicide, and, of course, drug use are made illegal.
What many don’t realize however, is that a very basic principle is
being violated when such laws are made to take effect.

Certainly I am not alone in feeling that one’s body, and what is
done with it, is one’s own business. If people want to sell their
bodies, if people want to ride in a car and stupidly not wear
seatbelts, and if people want to get a bad head trip by putting
mass quantities of LSD into their bodies, they should be able to.
These are not evil acts, like rape, murder and child abuse; these
are perfectly suitable human vices that are not up to the
government to regulate. So as long as the recipients of the
marijuana or cocaine are conscientious adults, fully in control of
their senses, they should be able to consume the drugs without
having to worry about an undercover sting going down outside their
houses.

Law enforcement officials would then be able to better maximize
their efficiency of catching the real bad guys. The FBI and CIA
could redirect their efforts away from "evil" drug kingpins who
almost never touch our lives and achieve a real sense of global
security.

All this could be achieved if our personal liberties to use
drugs as we pleased weren’t violated, a sentiment Thomas Jefferson
shared with a brand new republic when he said, "When government
starts to regulate morality, it’ll be time for a revolution."