I dunno, having been kicked nearly to death by someone tweaking out on meth, I find it hard to be sad about the war on drugs.
The war on drugs is the government/populace equivalent of hitting kids in the head with a hammer because they missed their bed time.
[...]
And that's... well, it's an unsympathetic position, to put it lightly. Equivalent to "I'm not sad about dogfighting rings because a dog bit me once". It's kind of disturbing, to be honest.
That's a strained pair of analogies if I've ever seen any. You're making it seem as if the people performing violent crime to get money for another hit or back their drug ring in some way or other are completely without consent in this matter, much like an animal directed to a purpose it can't grasp intellectually, or a child unable to protect one's self from abuse. This, frankly, is insulting to those in legal and/or medical problems due to drugs because it assumes them completely powerless and irresponsible and exonerating them of all blame, and insulting to victims of abuse because the analogy trivializes their ordeal.
*sigh*
First off.
The idea of the war on drugs is to try to dismantle the massive organized crime institutions that have been formed through drug distribution and ancillary crimes. The fact that someone gets mangled by the gears is of little importance in the short run. The main idea is to combat the spread and power of an organization that is inherently dangerous due to its practices and motives. What ends up mattering after a couple years, however, is the deluge of users and expendable small-fry dealers that clog up jails, while the heads of the operation field private armies and stake out territories with impunity, short of shelling the bastards with artillery fire.
Secondly.
Legalizing it would be a message that it's okay to experiment with high risk drugs and get addicted and/or catch AIDS/Hep C/god-knows-what-else, because even if the state takes a monopoly on it, it'll still be cheaper to buy from back-alley dealers because they have lower production, transport and distribution costs and can undercut the state-backed competition. So you're back to square one.
Besides. It's not like you can put a condom on the needle and get the high, without the neurological after-effects, which are the main reason someone does stupid things while on drugs.
Thirdly,
If it's a law, and it doesn't unjustifiably limit your freedoms, you fucking obey it, as silly, ridiculous, or pointless as it may seem at first glance. Because, maybe, just maybe, a legislative body elected by you and your own peers got together, talked about a real problem with real effects, and that law was the best they could come up with, either by their educational, intellectual, informational or social limitations. So maybe, just maybe, that law has a point in being there.
The moment you willingly disobey a law, even doing it as a political statement, you do so at your own expense, fully knowing the consequences. If you're not willing to accept those consequences, how'bout, say... not breaking the law?
"Why's it harmful?"
"It's scheduled, it must be harmful."
"And why's it scheduled?"
"Because it's harmful!"
Now, after I've said that, I also need to say that a good part of the problem is that the legislature concerning these substances is made, at best, by lawschool graduates, or, at worst, by movie moguls and turnip farmers, instead, of, say, social analysts and neurochemists. Hell, the growth of textile hemp is outlawed because it's in the same family as pot, whereas hemp is potentially a far more sustainable biofuel crop. It's also why rehab and research centers addressing these very problems work below their optimum.
This is also the problem with many of the "educational" campaigns about the effects of drugs, that are run with a political or economic agenda, and often skew data regarding their own effectiveness, and often end up actually backfiring and increasing drug use, due to being created by people who, again, have no clue what they're doing, even in the noblest if intentions.
So, we need to educate our legislators. By someone actually documented enough do do the educating. Then let's let them (maybe even help them, *cough*FreeInternetAct*cough*) make some informed, coherent laws that don't harm the people that they're supposed to protect. Then we need to educate ourselves and others about the full effects these substances have on ourselves and on others. Then, we need to see what we can do for those who've damaged their lives and those whose lives have been damaged by the former.
Author
Topic: Things that made you sad today thread. (Read 9776303 times)