I generally try to avoid Facebook debates and discussions. But sometimes I just have to say something when I think it needs to be said.
LDS Friend
on Facebook:
Uh yes,
let's end the drug war already. It's insane!
Me: You
mean, like legalize it all?
Friend: To
quote Milton Friedman which for the most part represents my view, "I'm in
favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values, if people want to kill
themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from
drugs is because they are illegal."
Me: I'm not much impressed with Milt's argument.
I've heard the same argument from people who were angry, either with users I
general or because they gave up trying to help a loved one who they couldn't
seem to reach and just gave up. I've also heard this
from people who I knew were users, but didn't know I knew and used it cynically
to tap into others sympathies just so they could carry on in their own
addictions. It's lame at best and uncharitable at worst. Any recovering addict
would have a lot more to say about it than this. I suspect you would feel very
differently if your 13 year old daughter became addicted to meth because some
friend convinced her it was good, and besides, it's not illegal.
Friend: Drug
abuse is a terrible and horrible thing within society that does indeed destroy
families and lives. I am in no way advocating turning a blind eye to a family
member or loved one's drug abuse. When i say end the war on drugs I am calling
for an end to the prohibition on
the sale of drugs, not on treatment and rehabilitation. Nicotine is extremely
addictive and tobacco causes cancer. Yet we have no inner city violence over
the trade of tobacco because of legalization. A great example of the problems
that prohibition causes is the era of alcohol prohibition in the U.S.
consumption did not stop, rather the trade moved to the black market. Gang
violence, wasted resources, and a failure to prohibit alcohol consumption. We
waste billions of dollars a year in this country incarcerating casual drug
users, sniffing out drugs at border crossings, the DEA etc. In 2002 when I
presented a bill in my mock senate to end the drug war we were spending 50
billion a year which was equivalent to the federal budget on education. The
economy ia obviously impacted here but the real victims of the prohibition on
drugs are the most disadvantaged in the inner cities. Gang violence and lure of
the black market drug trade are just a few problems. To your earlier pont I
much rather see the resources we spend on a losing war go to treatment and
rehabilitation than being wasted trying to get drugs off the streets which will
never happen.
Me: After my first post I hoped you wouldn't
think I was accusing or implying something negative about you - I wasn't. But
that's the problem with the written word. I have to try to be very picky about
what words use or they can be misunderstand way too easily. Also, a Facebook
dialogue is really a losing proposition. Believe me, I don't think you're
pro-drugs in any way, and I believe you're sincere.
I'm an old guy and I've been hearing this
prohibition argument for literally decades. I see a real flaw in it. Time and
space won't allow me to cover everything I'd like to say, and I'll have to get
off my soapbox, but their justification in comparing it to the problems during
prohibition is faulty. That situation was like trying to close the barn door
after the horse escaped; taking away something that had already been in common
use for centuries and was deeply embedded in society and in general. Too many people
felt it was a "right" and were willing to break what they saw as a
prudish law that infringed on these rights. And regarding nicotine, we still
have a real problem with black market cigarette sales, generally because people
want to avoid the tax, which the government says is supposed to be using to
help in cancer research; again an attempt at repairing damage already done, and
there's no argument about how much damage it does. I don't believe this will
change until He who's right it is to rule comes to rule.
When something like this is legalized it opens
the door for greater abuse. There are no social restraints. People who normally
might avoid it have little, if any reason to refrain. If we're not willing to
proactively fight against something we know is wrong, we become a passive
supporter. The war on drugs is an outward statement that as a people we still
believe there is something really wrong with drug use. To stop for economic
reasons is like saying since it's so expensive to fight an out-of-control fire,
let's stop and channel that money into rebuilding from the ashes. And all the
while the fire gets bigger and more destructive. That would be a fatalistic
attitude at best, but would also essentially be saying that the lives and
property we might have saved just weren't worth the cost.
The notion of channeling monies into rehab and
prevention also has a problem. Where would that money come from? The usual
answer is either taxes would be levied on the sale of drugs, and/or from the
same sources the War on Drugs gets its money from now. Their position reminds
me of the argument in favor of allowing the California State lottery years ago.
The proponents said the money would be used to fund the schools, and that the
current funding sources would remain in place, adding to the education budget.
Within a year the state budget makers were raiding the original fund sources
under the justification that the lottery was doing a great job. We're now
basically back to square one. Education is underfunded, all that other money
went somewhere else and it has turned into a tax on the poor for the most part
as they are the ones typically participating most heavily in the lottery.
And who would be in charge of overseeing these
legitimate drug sales? The government? Legalizing medical marijuana in
California and Colorado has created a bureaucratic mess.
Drug abuse (and I will add legal prescription
drugs), like alcohol abuse continues to cause so much damage to the users, and
collateral damage to relationships, families and society in general. For the
government to end that war is the same as capitulating and becoming complicit
to the damage being done, and for what reason? In the name of economics? I
guarantee that the cost of rehab in money and human costs, which is very high
now, would just get bigger.
I don't know if I changed his mind, but he's a
good man and I really couldn't let it pass unremarked on.
No comments:
Post a Comment