Friday, September 2, 2011

Political/ Social Views Part 1: Drug Legality

This is something I wrote about last year that I still maintain today. People can get addicted to anything -video games, money, alcohol... It's just that some things are more addictive and harmful to a person and those things should be banned for the sake of the people who would use them. Meth nd Cocaine use being handled maturally in a non-addictive way is still a pretty far stretch.


May 12, 2010
Drug Essay
Philo 5

I believe that certain drugs, such as marijuana, should be legalized when society has decided it is prepared to make those substances available to everyone. People should have the ability to self-medicate using whatever substance they choose. Drugs are not inherently addictive, although some may be more likely to cause addiction due to their potency. It is up to the person consuming the substance whether or not to use it excessively and risk addiction. Since most people over the age of 18 or 21 are granted rights to certain substances because they are officially deemed responsible enough to handle them, why should those people be denied access to other substances that are illegal but have that capacity to be handled maturely without leading to addiction?

The DEA created a pamphlet in 2003 called “Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization”. In it they listed their top ten “facts” against legalizing drug use. Fact 3 states: “Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful”. However, Daniel Shapiro argues in his essay “Addiction and Drug Policy” that “people tend to addict themselves to various substances” (Shapiro 535). Drugs exist and they have certain chemical properties that tend to create pleasurable experiences for people. The fact that some people overuse these drugs to achieve and excessive and constant supply of that pleasure does not mean that the drug is inherently addictive. Anything, when used excessively for pleasure can become an addiction: such as alcohol, cigarettes, food, prescription drugs, sex, adrenaline . . . Shapiro argues that the reason the majority of people do not become addicts is because they have responsibilities in their lives to maintain such as work and family and the society and culture they are living in tends to give guidelines and rules to help people use substance in moderation (Shapiro 532, 533).

The DEA also argues that drugs such as marijuana should only be used for medicinal purposes with the guidance of licensed physicians and “crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in hand”. Thomas Szasz argues in his essay “The Ethics of Addiction: An Argument in Favor of Letting Americans Take Any Drug They Want” that people making drugs legal to patients with a doctor’s supervision takes away a person’s autonomy and control over his body (Szasz 520). If people really want to harm themselves or kill themselves using substances, they can do it with anything not just drugs (Szasz 515). To assume that people are not capable of maintaining their lives with the use of certain drugs such as marijuana, but still allowing them to access to alcohol and cigarettes is a hypocritical contradiction. And to assume that anyone who uses a drug would then fall into a life of crime is even more insulting. Correlation does not prove causation in terms of drugs and violence or crime.

At this point in America, especially in California it socially acceptable to consume certain drugs, such as marijuana. In California you can wear a shirt with marijuana plant on it and expect to get the same sort of reaction as wearing a shirt with Bud Light beer. People don’t necessarily think highly of people who consume substances such as alcohol or marijuana for recreational use, but they also wouldn’t argue that that individual is not entitled to the right to use those substances. Since some drugs can be more physically and mentally detrimental when abused, most people choose not to use them –such as meth or cocaine. If time passes and those drugs become more commonly used and assimilated into people’s daily lives, then they too will probably come up as having the potential to be legalized. As long as people are informed about the effects of the substances they consume, they should be allowed to take whatever they want.

4 comments:

  1. I see where you're coming from but let's stretch this out a bit.

    It is the job of the gov't to protect it's people, at least to a certain extent, so that it doesn't become oppression.

    It's maintaining that balance in between absolute freedom (which leads to anarchy) and oppression that a good govt maintains, what good parents are to do with their kids, and which I think the USA does quite well.

    Or else, you end up with what opium did to China.

    I hear the argument "well, alcohol is legal in USA and its worse than MJ so it should be legal".

    Not so. Not all alcohol is legal in America. In fact, plenty of alcohols aren't even allowed to be MADE in America because they are deemed too harmful.

    No, you don't allow people in your country. to do whatever they please. That's called irresponsibility, just as allowing your kids to do whatever they please is called abuse.

    12

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awww man, you reminded me of a great point I wanted to make but now I've forgotten it. I seriously need to invest in Gingko -I d;t know why my thoughts keep ditching my these days... Oh yah! I remember now!

    California and a few other states like Hawaii are debating Marijuana legalization -but not the majority of other states. It seems that some cultures/ states can handle and want to handle "soft drug" legalization, while others don't. It's similar with states who have Dry Counties.

    It should be up to the states and the majority of people living in those states to decide. One ruling for or against may not be suitable for an entire country that contains multiple subcultures because each state is individually unique.

    For this to happen, a state -like California- would have to appeal to the federal government to allow that state to legalize marijuana fter the majority of its own population agrees on this. Then, more than likely, they'll be denied by the Federal Government.

    Therefore if a state reaches such a critical point where a serious majority of its people demand marijuana to be legalized, that state will have to get the consent of the federal government by appealing to other states. If the majority of all states were t agree that California should be allowed to legailze marijuana within its borders because their culture can handle it responsibly, then the Federal Government would have to listen. The Federal Government supports The United States. If the states united and mandated something, the Federal Government would have to listen. That is the only way marijuana will ever be legalized.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What you say makes sense. I'm a strong believer in democracy and majority rules. It's one of the pillars of this country.

    I think it would be legalized in Hawaii before California because, well, look how far away Hawaii is.

    The problem with legalizing MJ in the continental US is one can just drive to the next state, get high, and go back home (and probably be too high to drive safely).

    12

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hahaha... yah. But Mexico isn't safe anymore thanks to the drug cartels and Canada gives you a higher risk of getting caught. Poor pot heads. They'll just have to continue using illegally like they do now.

    ReplyDelete