Illegal drugs and the drug war

Podcast: Download

By M Parrott
Article ID: 1253

A large proportion of taxpayer money pays for a failed war on drugs. We are the proverbial ostrich, burying its head in the sand, pretending that if we can’t see a problem then it doesn’t exist. The war on drugs has been lost. A large proportion of crime is due to drugs. No, let me rephrase that: a large proportion of crime is due to drugs being illegal. It is estimated that three-fifths of Americans have used illegal drugs. Barack Obama has admitted to having inhaled cannabis. The quoted conversation can be summarized like this:

“Mr. Obama, have you ever taken drugs?”

“Yes, I smoked cannabis at college.”

“Did you inhale?”

“That’s the point.”

Here is a short clip with an interview relating to Obama’s cannabis use:

Does that make Presidential candidate Barack Obama a criminal? Does that make the Rolling Stones criminals? Of course not. If everyone who took drugs is a criminal, then sixty percent of Americans belong in jail. And on the subject of drugs and crimes, let’s talk about how we could get rid of over fifty percent of crimes. A large proportion of crimes are drug-related. These include drug trafficking, prostitution, gang wars, and human smuggling. Now imagine we legalized drugs and made them federally-regulated and taxed.

What if currently-illegal drugs were sold alongside tobacco and alcohol? Drug dealers would have to get new jobs. People would be able to afford drugs and wouldn’t have to resort to such drastic measures as stealing to fulfil their addictions. Prostitutes would no longer have to pay their pimps to get a hit that they so dearly need. No one would be killed in a drug war, because drug wars would be obsolete. There’d be fewer gang wars. And those gangs that exist from drugs profits would have to disband.

There. By legalising, taxing and regulating a few drugs, we’d get rid of thousands of criminals. Don’t think the government is above taxing something they’d describe as dangerous: look at alcohol and tobacco. The British government claims they want everyone to quit smoking, and that smokers are a burden on the National Health Service. In reality, smokers pretty much pay for the NHS, at £5.00 a pack. £4.50 of that price is tax. Is this the kind of income the government is going to give up?

Let’s talk about the potential uses for money gained by taxing these now-legal drugs. One would be creating safer places for people to get their hits. With proper access to sterilised needles, the spread of HIV, hepatitis and many other blood-borne diseases would decrease. The drugs would be regulated and monitored, and would no longer be cut with brick dust and other such highly dangerous substances. This would reduce deaths, since a proportion of drug-related deaths is due to what the drugs are cut with.

The idea that drug users are dangerous is baloney. Ecstasy makes people happily hug each other. Diamorphine (also known as heroin) is a painkiller. The majority of these drugs have side effects that don’t make people dangerous. And even those that do, like lysergic acid dythalamide (that’s LSD), the users are more of a danger to themselves than to others.

Some say that people who don’t use drugs don’t use them because they’re illegal. And that drug related road accidents would dramatically increase. Wrong. First, if you don’t use drugs now, would you if they became legal? Of course not. You’re an intelligent person that knows most drugs are addictive and unhealthy. As for the theory that accidents would increase; we’d have to make it illegal to take drugs and drive. Use the same initiative that we currently have on drunk-driving.

Legalization may have another unforeseen benefit: There would be a decrease in drug users. Drug addicts would be on the right side of the law and wouldn’t be prosecuted for getting addiction treatment. The present system ensures that addicts stay addicted because they can’t seek help.

A final important point is about the medicinal side. My uncle has multiple sclerosis. It gets worse every year. His doctor said the smoking of dihydrocannibol would highly reduce his suffering. The problem is, dihydrocannibol is cannabis – marijuana – and is illegal under United Kingdom law. Even though the police in the UK have a relaxed view on cannabis, allowing you to have enough for self-consumption but not dealing, my uncle can’t guarantee the legitimacy of his supply. And he is classed as a criminal. But who is he hurting? He’s purchased a product to reduce his suffering before he inevitably dies from his disorder.

If someone’s hurting anyone, blame the government. The law creates this system. This system kills police on the front lines of the drug war. At these police officers’ funerals they drape the American flag over the coffins. Yet this flag is what killed these officers. They are dead because they swore to protect their people. But who is being protected? And from whom? A final point: A long as junkies aren’t attacking your kids or stealing your Xbox, do you honestly care what they do?

Other articles related to this topic:

• Can safety regulations kill you? How safe are seatbelts and seatbelt laws?
• Enemies closer: Why we should relocate terror suspects to the United States
• Allegiance and flag burning
• DRM is failure in action
• Ice cubes, cornflakes, inflation and what caused the sub-prime lending crisis: Why theories are so hard to get right