Recently I had an almost three hour long discussion with a friend of mine while I should have been studying at the PMA. We talked a whole lot about America's antidrug stance its effects and outcomes. This whole thing came up because of the recent coverage in the news about the failure of the "War on Drugs."
So what is the problem with drugs? Drugs are substances make people less productive members of society or they make people a burden unto society or in many cases outright kill people. Hmm so that means that the war on drugs should be expanded to include alcohol as well as tobacco because if they're not included that could mean a police officer could arrest a man for smoking pot in his home and then that same police officer could go home and smoke and get drunk. So does that mean that alcohol and tobacco are state sponsored drugs? Does that mean that the government has an inherent interest in making sure that the drugs of choice remains alcohol and tobacco?
Honestly I just don't see why any government should care what their populace does with their own bodies. If Dilip Patel (the brown John Doe) wants to do cocaine and ruin his life then why the should the government make it their business to try and stop him. And if its in the government's interest to make sure that people don't abuse drugs and ruin their life then why is the government not outlawing alcohol or tobacco for that matter?
Although theres a mountain of evidence pointing to the addictive and deadly spiral that cocaine and other "hard" drugs ensnare the user within, but where is this proof for pot? From what I've read and been told pot is no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol and its not addictive. However the U.S. government continues its rampage against it even going so far as to suggest that Dilip Patel smoking pot is helping out al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits.
Talk about a skewed concept of morality enforcement. There is nary an outcry or staunch posturing in the U.S. government regarding the blatant disregard in relation to the recent accounting scandals. However ask anyone member of the U.S. governemtn and they will most likely come down hard on the idea drug usage even pot. A few years ago I remember that then Surgeon General Dr. Joyce Elders suggested that drug legalization be looked into and man alive there rose a cry of opposition. The U.S. doesn't even want to think about discussing the issues. In the mean time the "war" continues to meddle in the affairs of other countries that could potentially use the attention that is currently showered upon their drug corps in their education systems!
Imagine if the concept of capitalism was applied to drugs like pot? Imagine the tax revenue! Also I think it'd take out the "danger" factor. Just like drinking alcohol during prohibition was a cool taboo, smoking pot is today's cool taboo. Take the danger out of it and many people would be less inclined to give it a go. Sure you could also argue that making it legal may cause more people to try it, but I don't think there is enough evidence to cause concern. Tobacco usage has been on the decline amongst teenagers even though its legal, the cool factor is gone.
Anyway, to get to the core of it and to paraphrase what many before me have, "legalize it and then tax the hell out of it", not to mention end the hypocracy.
Excellent explanation of the mess that is the Mozilla frontend.
P.S. Anonymous stabbing pains in your psyche are almost never good.
Posted by Mr. Keyur at August 6, 2002 01:10 AM