The War On Drugs

[poliphilo]

The war on drugs is stupid.  Mainly because it's a war on human nature. The need to get out of one's skull is a fundamental  human need- only a little less fundamental than the need for sex. Like all great Puritan enterprises- like Prohibition for instance- ithe war on drugs was doomed from the start.

By criminalising drugs we criminalise millions of overwise law-abiding citizens- and give thousands of not-so-law-abiding citizens a vast international business to get stuck into. Worse than that, we criminalise the economies of entire nations- eg Colombia and Afghanistan. 

Has the war on drugs achieved anything? Not that I can see. If anything it's been counterproductive. Our society is awash with the damn things. 

I'd legalise everything. Yes, I know drugs are dangerous. So is whiskey.   And, yes- OK- I also know this is pie-in-the-sky talk and we've got ourselves into a position where what I'm advocating is politically unthinkable so I might as well shut up.

But it's not as though drugs have always been criminalised. The war on drugs is a 20th century lunacy. It's akin to all those other 20th century lunacies- like facism and communism- that tried to change the human animal into something it isn't by  action of the state. The Victorians were up to their eyeballs in laudanum and it didn't stop them running an empire and writing great novels. 

In the past people were kept in line by the attitude of their peers.  Just because it was legal didn't mean everybody was doing it.  There was a stigma. Dr Watson didn't think it was clever of Holmes to mainline cocaine.  But at least addicts were pitied not banged up. 

I don't like drugs. I prefer to keep my head clear. For the record I've smoked dope and it made me cough and I've dropped acid and it made things go all funny. 

On the other hand if it hadn't been for the drugs Coleridge wouldn't have written Kubla Khan and Lennon wouldn't have written I Am The Walrus and Philip K Dick wouldn't have written anything.  Drugs do interesting things to the mind. It's sort of accepted that it's OK for artists and musicians to take drugs because it can be filed under research. It's OK for tribal shamans too. 

I'm not saying we should all take drugs. I'm saying we should all have the right to take drugs if we want to. Drug taking is a matter of personal morality. And for the State to intervene in matters of personal morality is despotic and futile.

Comments

[frumiousb.livejournal.com]

The Victorians were up to their eyeballs in laudanum and it didn't stop them running an empire and writing great novels.

Just to play devil's advocate, how much of this was because drugs were only available to either elites or criminals?

I'm not okay with the war on drugs, find it counterproductive and kind of silly. But on the other hand, I'm not sure about how I would feel about a "right to take drugs" in a broader sense. I'm sure that this makes me a bad libertarian, but then I knew that. It goes beyond personal morality if you have a substance so addictive that it impacts families, or causes people to steal to support their habits. Then it is a larger issue, and only government is positioned to address the larger issues.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

It isn't the drugs itself that bother me as much as the drug economy and what it funds.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

How did you come to be so rational and level-headed?

Good post.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm saying we should all have the right to take drugs if we want to. What if you're too young to be fully aware of the consequences of your choice? Perhaps yes, if fully aware, consenting adults wish to pop pills habitually, the state shouldn't have the right to stop them. But there's one key aspect: most drugs are addictive, and children aren't capable of deciding their moralities for themselves when they're young. Which is why you need parents to intervene, kantian ethics, etc, and in this case the govt seems to be playing nanny? Perhaps drugs should be treated like smoking, with a legal age limit and the works.

Still, the results of youths taking drugs and getting hooked are horrifically permanent; perhaps the government would rather compromise on individual freedoms to protect the young - you can't deny that complete banning works far better as a measure of deterrence than imposing an age limit. Just look at smoking, drinking, underaged sex.

[sculptruth.livejournal.com]

Just the terminology itself is damaging--"war" on drugs? War implies an instant enemy, which implies conflict, and so on. I fully believe politicians devised this language for the express purpose of creating a class issue.

I agree that decriminalising drugs would do wonders for taking the power out of the hands of the kingpins and also take away the mysterious allure of a prohibited substance for the young.

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

And Ken Kesey wouldn't have written One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - this alone puts me on your side.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying we should all take drugs. I'm saying we should all have the right to take drugs if we want to. Drug taking is a matter of personal morality.

This sounds great, until you realize that the person taking the drugs could be the person driving the bus/car you're riding in or that you're on the same street as. The person taking drugs could be flying the plane you're in.

I don't know about you, but I don't want my bus driver or pilot drunk, doped, tripping or anything else.