SHOOT THIS IDEA UP

Liberal Thinking And Legalizing Drugs Are Equally Dangerous

I love reading arguments in favor of drug legalization. They often
include statements to the effect of "marijuana is not as bad as
smoked tobacco," or "marijuana causes fewer auto accidents than
alcohol." People might as well argue "methamphetamine isn't any worse
than snorting pseudo ephedrine, red phosphorous, hydrochloric acid,
drain cleaner, battery acid, lye, lantern fuel and antifreeze."
Apparently, these are all thoroughly convincing rationalizations that
justify drug legalization. After all, lots of other things are worse
than drugs.

Other thoughtful arguments include: Legalization would reduce
courtroom clog, free up law enforcement resources, save tax dollars
and ease prison overcrowding. Coincidentally, these same arguments
could be used to legalize rape, murder and grand theft.

I wonder what the correlation is between drug users and those who
advocate drug legalization? Judging by their arguments, I would
assume it's quite high.

At any rate, here's the problem with the 'let's legalize drugs'
school of thought: They ignore the implicit fact that drugs are
highly addictive substances that entice the use of stronger drugs,
radically impair judgment and often compel users to employ tactics of
desperation to feed their vicious addictions.

I know what the hippies are saying: 'We only want to legalize
marijuana!' But where does the slippery slope end? When the flower
children grow bored with marijuana, will they want to legalize harder
drugs? And what of this gateway phenomenon - namely, the trend that
smoking marijuana leads to the abuse of harder substances. While it
is impossible to determine the number of marijuana users who move on
to harder drugs, most users of heroin, crack and other such
substances invariably began with good ol' Mary Jane.

The only credible argument in favor of drug legalization is the
notion that drug use is a victimless crime. If the world operated in
a vacuum where the conduct and decisions of individuals did not
influence other members of society, this argument would be half true.
On the other hand, all drugs damage users' intellectual capacity,
physical health and independence, thus the principal victims are the
users themselves.

Moreover, individuals do not operate in a vacuum - their stupid
decisions inevitably impact others. For example, a stoner who gets
high and decides to take a spin for some munchies endangers everyone
in his immediate vicinity. A user who physically or emotionally
abuses his family under the influence of drugs is adversely affecting
their safety and quality of life. A desperate addict who robs,
burglarizes or murders for drug money poses an obvious menace to the
community at large. Other consequences are less obvious. Drug use
accounts for a large number of illnesses, injuries, and fatalities.
This increases everyone's insurance premiums. Addicts who bottom-out
at the end of the social ladder will be dependent upon the state for
food, shelter, treatment and rehabilitation. Who do you think pays
for that? Certainly not the drug dealers or strung-out users.

In short, there are enormous social risks and costs associated with
drug use. Legalizing these substances would only intensify these problems.

However, I am in complete agreement with the legalization camp if all
prospective users rescind their national citizenship (and thus my
obligation to pay for their dim-witted decisions), move to a deserted
island and leave behind all who could be impacted by their substance
abuse. Au revoir, and happy dipping, dropping, drinking, injecting,
snorting and smoking, you crazy dope-heads!