I can honestly say I never thought I’d write a post inspired by Whitney Houston, but her death is connected to an issue of interest to me, namely the ineffective and unconstitutional “war on drugs” and how the conversation about the topic seems to always miss the boat.
Houston’s death was a sad event, but completely predictable. She was a woman of immense talent, plagued by personal demons she was never able to slay. I am truly sorry for that, and wish my deepest sympathy to her family, friends and fans. But if anything good can come of her death, and the timing coinciding with music’s biggest day of the year — the Grammy’s — I hope its that it changes the tone and content of the conversation about drugs in this country.
When people debate drugs, they typically fall into one of two camps. There are those who want to legislate our vices and criminalize (some of) our self-destructive behaviors, and there are others who think anything should go, do whatever feels good. Predictably the former group tends to fall on the conservative end of the political spectrum while the latter falls on the liberal end. I’m tired of predictable conversation. Can’t we just get real? Can’t we talk about every aspect of this topic, uncomfortable though some of it might be, without demonizing each other?
On the right, anyone who wants to legalize drugs is immoral, immature, not serious, or just wants to destroy themselves. From the left, anyone who wants to keep drugs out of the hands of addictive personalities like Houston, must be a close-minded, Puritan square.
I personally feel that there needs to be a more nuanced debate on the topic, because as I see it, the issue inhabits a murky middle ground that we rarely hear about in today’s media. Sure, when someone like Houston dies, likely as a result of her long and public drug use, there are cries of how tragic it is. In the last several years, I have seen more public discussion of addiction being a medical problem rather than a criminal problem, but that rarely takes the discussion as far as it needs to go.
As I see it, we need to simultaneously legalize all drugs, but also stigmatize their abuse (note I didn’t write their “use”).
Let me be clear: My stance is that all drugs should be legal for adults to purchase on a relatively free-market (I’m ok with some control over where you can purchase them, like in a liquor store to keep them away from children, and ok with some warning labels). The primary principal that governs most of my views on most subjects is that the government should interfere in our lives at the absolute minimum level. Personal liberty should be the paramount guideline, and laws that infringe on any personal liberty choices among consenting adults should be the grave exception, not the rule. The government exists to help us settle disputes when someone tries to take or destroy our property and lives, but it doesn’t exist to help us not destroy our own lives. We have the right to do so at our own peril.
Freedom is an amazing gift from our Creator (whether that is god or your parents), but it can also be ugly and painful. The Founding Fathers were clear: We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Any infringement on that right must be profoundly justified. How can making some drugs illegal, while legalizing others (some of which are more dangerous than the illegal ones) in any way conform to that principal? The drugs that are legal in America (alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco) were saved from the black list because they have been around longer, or had been more widely used throughout history, and are therefore more entrenched in our culture, not necessarily because of their danger levels. Its politics and hypocrisy at their highest levels.
Not that it matters to me if they are highly destructive. At least, I don’t care to use that as an excuse to infringe on personal liberty. How destructive something is that I consume, and do not force anyone else to consume, should have no bearing on its legal status. I do think destructiveness is a very good reason not to take most drugs, especially narcotics and the like. The argument that drugs lead to the downfall of society, lead to early death, lead to the destruction of the American family, etc etc… I honestly don’t dispute much of that perspective. Its hard to argue against. As painfully evidenced by Houston’s death, drugs can kill you, and ruin your life along the way to the end.
Habitually using most drugs is usually a very bad choice. Its a choice you should be free to make for yourself.
Here’s an even more obvious statement: The more addictive and dangerous (i.e. can kill you more quickly) the drug, the worse choice it is. You can ruin not only your life, but the life of your family, you can hurt your friends who suffer by watching you destroy yourself, and if you drive a car, you can kill yourself or others. There are many ways to do all of those things. Putting all drugs into one category of “evil” is just wrong. If all drugs were the same, caffeine, alcohol and tobacco would probably be illegal like the rest of the recreational drug group. For that matter, maybe chocolate should be illegal, since it has caffeine and leads to an endorphin rush. Clearly, we all know there are differences in drugs, though the “war on drugs” may have made it much harder for us to know what those differences are since scientific study of many “hard” drugs is nearly impossible. All that said, not all who try drugs become habitual users, or addicted, or ruin their lives. Even if they did, its irrelevant to my point. People need to be left to make choices for themselves, come what may.
Granting adults the right to choose what they ingest, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pressure people to stay away from that lifestyle. Experimenting with marijuana (I’ll save the “gateway drug” discussion for another time), and trying cocaine are very different things. [In the interest in full disclosure, I have never tried any illegal drug, and very few legal drugs for that matter. Despite believing people should be able to light up a doobie pretty much whenever they want, its currently illegal and I tried to adhere to the laws of the land.] We should discourage anyone from ever trying narcotics, heroin, and other drugs that fall into the highly addictive, highly destructive, can kill you even on your first try category. But should we ruin the lives of people who smoke marijuana in their own homes? I can’t claim ownership of this fantastic illustrative example, but have seen it often cited: Imagine if Presidents Obama, Bush, or Clinton — all have admitted to smoking marijuana — had been arrested trying something generally less dangerous than alcohol? Its likely that their political careers would have ended before they began if they’d had criminal records. Would that have made sense? Regardless of your political persuasion, its clear that the only difference is that they were never caught.
And that is the missed boat I mentioned earlier… the one we seem to miss in public discourse over whether or not to make drugs legal. Just because we decide to make something legal doesn’t mean we have to condone it, or condone every aspect of it. But neither does it mean we have to demonize every aspect of it. With personal liberty, people are allowed to make their own way in the world. That is the very core of what it means to live in a free society. And when people make mistakes, the default reaction shouldn’t be to throw them in jail. We all have demons to battle, and so long as my demons don’t convince me to hurt you, or steal your stuff, the best way to help me fight most of them them is through medical treatment, therapy, compassion, and friendship.
Its clear putting users in prison, jail, or even just fining them, thus stigmatizing them isn’t solving the problem of addiction. Its also led to the rise of Mexican, Central and South American drug cartels, inner city gang violence, and inflating the prices of drugs addicts will find a way to get no matter what.
Trying to legislate our vices is not only wrong in my view, but it just doesn’t work. If lying were illegal (not including those Martha Stewart type lies people sometimes tell to law enforcement), would the fear of going to jail end our propensity to lie? I think its fair to say that’s a big fat NO. But I think most people would agree that lying is usually best avoided. It destroys our relationships and reputations. Some people are habitual liars, while others manage to be mostly honest. Can the liars change? I think they can if they want to, but not by being sent to prison where their reputations would be further sullied to an irreparable level.
Even if the fear of prison could keep us from lying, or eating doughnuts, or enjoying a few glasses of wine, or eating chocolate, should the government have the right to take our liberty away for indulging in activities that are inherently our personal business? I believe the answer is no for the same reason I feel its no regarding drugs.
Like I said, personal liberty can be a messy thing. That is life. With the good, there can always be bad. It is my unalienable right to decide how to maneuver through the mess, and it is the government’s responsibility to stand aside as I do so.
Where am I going wrong and what did I miss? Lets discuss!
Cheers,
PersephoneK
