Basic look into the Political Philosophy surrounding current US drug laws.

Tweet

I suppose this is a general discussion on the philosophy of drug laws. It seems to me that the logical phiosophy of controlling drugs is two fold. A:Because its potential harm to the people that use them is rather large. B. Lesser known or thought about, because of its potential negitive influence on the workforce, and the the nations output. Well, I suppose thats not all the reasons, but these are the main two I encounter when exploring this subject. The first issue "Because its potential harm to the people that use them." This assumes two things. A: That most people using drugs are idiots. B: That the goverment has the right to play parent and tell us we can't do things that are harmful to us. The basic philosophy of goverment is giving up some of your rights and the goverment helps secure your safty and well being. Traditionally this is carried out by protecting you from others. To cross the line and protect you from your self raises many Issues that I don't think have a good answer. Its like making attempted suiside illigal. Ultimately your life is just that, your life. The goverment, or any one else, has no right to tell you "You can't kill youself." To do so is to indicate that they have more possesion over your life then you do. So whats the answer to this issue? Simple enough. Such things should be controlled up to a point. Such as a year marker, being either 18 or 21. By outlawing the more potentially dangerous things, such as alchool or drugs, it would make sure that there was enough time for people to become educated about their choices, and allow them to be mature in their descions. Such is a way of both protecting people, while not laying claims to any part of their life. The problem with point a is that you can't tell someone that they can't do somthing because their an idiot. Idiots drive. Idiots own guns. Idiots drink. Idiots do potential dangerous things that could harm themselves and others all the time. Most drugs carry more risks for the user then anyone around them. So you can't restrict someone based on their percived mental competence. I had thought that natural selection would have weeded out such people, but I think modern society is fairly idiot proof enough that almost anyone can live to reproduce... Thats definatly a large enough discussion to debate in another topic however. Another problem with drug laws in the sheer extent of money waisted on the "War on drugs." Go ahead. Look at the sheer number of people imprisioned for drug releated crimes. I'll wait. Done? Rather shocking huh? Also look at the terms for these crimes compared to more serious things like murder. Wow, huh? If your not inclined to look up the figures, then concider this. The cost of the war on drugs in 2005 was in the neighboorhood of 40 billion, and thats being consevitive. Its also not giving in value to the socialeconomic costs or personal costs incured as a result of incarserations. Another point to concider is the sheer ammount of economic recorses that could be made by legelising, taxing and controlling recreational drugs. Also concider that by goverment regulation on these things, the could be insured to be clean. Clean drugs would result in a great reduction of the ammount of harm that is caused by drug use. By removing such strict control and the stigmas regaurding them it would also allow more education to be provided on them. More education would allow those who intend to do them much greater chance of doing them safely, also reducing fatal and harmful results of their actions. As I already mentioned, their is also an economic benifit assosiated. The funds used the the war on drugs would NOT be entirly removed. They would be reasigned to doing such things as regulating what is and isn't sold. After all, if its legal, it has to be relitivly safe, and most recreational drugs are when used responsibly. This is true of most everything of course. But, cost would be more then paid off by the sheer ammount of tax generated off of this legelization. Couple this with the ammount of money no longer spent on ever incressing costs of incarseration of people who could otherwise contribute to the economy themselves and you've got quite a huge differance. My last point is simple. Legalizing and controlling drugs would be the single biggest blow possible to the black market drug economy. It simply couldn't exist in such an enviroment. Suddenly, instead of that money existing on an untaxed level in peoples pockets, instead of forign drug traders and traficers, it would exist circulating fairly in our own economy. This would have a secondary effect of greatly reducing, if not mostly eliminating, death and injuries relating from drug crimes. Take what you will from this, debate what you want, and support what you can. But I encourage everyone who agrees with this to orginize and network. What one person things is opinions. What a group of people think is a small amount of power. When it reaches a certain point and politions start taking notice, then they will begin to become campaign points. This is how things can become changed in this contry. Its not about taking power away from people who have it, or even changing thier minds. Its about making them think that their level depends on what is important to you, and enough people do then its entirly possible that it will. I have a feeling theirs enough people in this contry to make an impact on the existing laws, their just not vocal enough about it.