If
you say to drug legalization advocates that you want to find a way to limit the
loss of innocent life that results from drugs due to impairment, they often
invoke the loss of innocent lives that results from alcohol. That response is beyond irrational. They seem to think that because we permit A,
and as a result deaths follow, then we ought to permit B, even though deaths
follow. The argument is a foolish non
sequitur. The existence of one
death-dealing evil is not a moral or rational justification for the existence
of another.
They
argue as if they have little or no regard for the loss of innocent life. They are quite happy to expand the list of
potential victims as long as they themselves get to injure and befuddle their
own minds in a cloud of reality-banishing THCs, in a hedonistic orgy of
cowardly self-indulgence. Amazingly, they
use the death of innocents from alcohol as a reason to legalize drug use. Regarding alcohol, they rightly identify the
loss of innocent life as an evil, but they don’t offer any ways to limit that
loss of life; they offer it as a justification for legalizing additional
drugs. It seems never to occur to them
to ask this question: “How many drugs
can a society legalize and still remain a society?” Instead of asking that question, they say, “We
legalize alcohol and people die, so let’s legalize pot and have even more
people die. Why should killing others be
limited to the drinkers? Give us the
chance too.” Death means nothing to
them, and their arguments prove it. What
matters to them is another way to get high.
Despite
the occasionally deadly consequences of impairment, which they invoke regarding
the drug alcohol, they still argue that taking drugs is a victimless crime. But their argument regarding alcohol-caused impairment
overtly says it is not. Alcohol is a
drug. Because it sometimes causes
death-dealing impairment, it is not victimless.
It is a death-risk taking enterprise.
The death it risks is often someone else’s. If you point this out to them, they say that
lots of things risk injury and death to others, yet we permit them. But that response simply invokes the same
stupid argument invoked above. The fact
that life has lots of risks, some of them deadly, is not a justification for
adding even more deadly risks to the list. The fact that life has risks already is not a
reason to multiply them. Tell us why we ought to risk MORE innocent lives just
so you can get high.
Drug
usage and drug legalization are not all-or-nothing issues. The question is not “Should we legalize all
drugs or no drugs?” Wisdom is not found
in the false assertion that “If we legalize one drug then we ought to legalize
them all.” That’s just the
all-or-nothing intellectual extremism of an irrational and imprudent mind. The real question is, as noted above, “How
many drugs can a society legalize and still remain a society? The answer is neither “all of them” nor “none
of them.” We might have to draw a line
somewhere other than at either extreme.
Drawing lines is sometimes quite difficult. But difficulty is no reason for declining our
obligation to make reasoned and nuanced choices.
If
I were an advocate of drug legalization, then I’d make this offer: Let’s do for drug use what we did for
smoking. We started large campaigns, both
public and private, to warn folks of smoking’s awful dangers and risks. We limited its usage to certain ages and certain
places. We made no smoking ages and no
smoking zones. We limited its
advertising. We issued graphic warning
labels. As a result, the percentage of
smokers has declined over the years. To
date, I have never heard even one drug legalization proponent suggest we do the
same for smoking pot that we did for smoking tobacco: Keep it legal; educate folks incessantly and
tirelessly against it; and limit its use to certain age groups and places. Legalizing it ought to go closely together
with speaking out against it.
But
think carefully for a moment about the principle and practice of limiting drug usage
to certain age groups. We do that
because we consider some folks too immature to handle drugs (and alcohol). We limit usage to some persons, or groups of
persons. We aren’t talking here about
children or teens indulging legally. They
are too immature to indulge. That is too
destructive and dangerous a practice to permit.
So, for those folks, we criminalize it.
But if immaturity disqualifies you from use, then remember that
immaturity is not an age but a condition of mind and character, things not well
identified by age. Age tells how long
you’ve been on the road, not how far you’ve travelled. Age restrictions are maturity-based
assumptions. Regarding many folks, those
assumptions are both arbitrary and mistaken.
Some folks in their 50s are too immature to use drugs. (One thinks here of the mayor of
Toronto.) Some in their 20s are not too
immature. Age is no reliable indicator.
But
almost all thinking people agree that drugs ought to be prohibited for at least
some. By so thinking, they are selective prohibitionists. They are for prohibition, but only in selected
cases. The real issue then is not “prohibition
or no prohibition,” but where, and how, to draw the prohibition line. They tend to draw it at a younger age; I tend
to draw it at a higher age. Because both sides agree on prohibition of some
sort, then now all we have to haggle over is where to draw the prohibition line,
not if to draw it. If you are against
drawing any line at all, if you wish to legalize drugs even for children, you
are beyond the pale of common sense. You
cannot be trusted with drugs.
Please
notice that those who wish to draw the line at a certain age practice
prohibition despite their argument that prohibition leads to a black market and
to violence. What they think ought to be
a convincing argument to others against prohibition they themselves reject in
this case. Yet somehow they are surprised
to see others reject an argument they themselves reject.
No comments:
Post a Comment