Hey thanks hapa. Nice to see we can set our political differences aside.
Yes, I was referring to soft drugs like pot, and I don't think that hard drugs should be 100% legal. After all, they are not 100% legal in the Netherlands, and there is good reason for this. The problem with hard drugs is that people who use them tend to be less than responsible when on them.
But I don't think that it is legitimate to tell adults who pay taxes and assume representation of their beliefs in government that they cannot use heroin if they so desire. This sounds insane, but I believe that government should represent the voters with regard to the LAWS that the State enforces, and if there are voters who believe that heroin is good for them, so be it. However, I also believe that there is no "Touchstone For Ethics," (except for the Golden Rule -- which explains my disdain for most world religions), and thus I do not believe that it is the government's responsibility or priviledge to reflect the religious beliefs of its constituents. The Founding Fathers also believed this, and we all seem to think that they were good guys, so why why WHY do Bush and Ashcroft think it is their RIGHT TO TELL US THAT RELIGION AND GOD AND JESUS ARE ALL GOOD FOR US?? Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting sick of the blurrier distinction between church and state.
This whole voters versus government thing is a huge problem in the US, and I for one, resent the fact that the people who counted on MY vote to get elected think they can legislate what is good for me CONTRARY to what I may want, and when popular opinion is on my side and not on theirs (Iraq also comes to mind here). The legalization of pot in California is an example of this. What you have is smaller localities in various parts of CA who want to de-criminalize pot, and thus the local police do not enforce the marijuana laws, nor are county judges interested in sentencing pot users. BUT the feds go in there are make arrests, because pot is illegal under federal law. This is a clear example of alienation of the local government by the feds. The government is only supposed to interfere with the State when the State is violating the civil rights of its citizens, NOT when the State is attempting to expand them. Any interference by the Federal government in the State's affairs should only be prompted when there is evidence of direct interference of the rights of the constituents by the State.
The gray area in the whole matter is whether or not pot is actually, in itself, harmful (before you laugh, substitute in the word "alcohol" for pot and think again); however, drinking grain alcohol is also harmful, but I could get it at 7-11 in many states. The feds could argue that pot is harmful, addictive, damaging to families and old ladies because of blah blah blah, so it is their job to protect the old ladies and families from the law-breaking drug dealers. The reality (if you read up on the subject) is that pot is far less harmful than alcohol, actually has relevant medical use (and again, before you laugh, accept the fact that physicians have no problems writing prescriptions for HEROIN aka morphine, oxycodone, vicodin, methadone, etc. -- and encounter FAR more difficulty with the feds when prescribing pot), and unlike alcohol, which kills thousands of people -- many innocent people hit by drunk drivers -- nobody has ever OD'd from pot, nor is it believed to be possible to OD from it. However, it is ILLEGAL, which also effectively prevents PROPER medical studies from being conducted on it. The demonization of pot also makes it socially unacceptable for a scientist to study pot, including any other potential medicinal effects, besides treating glaucoma and nausea.
So it becomes a big self-feeding circle, where the fact that pot is VERY illegal and VERY in-demand inspires the criminal element to become involved in its cultivation and trafficing. The illegality of pot has WASTED millions of our tax dollars prosecuting criminals who might otherwise be forced to GET JOBS instead of selling pot.
Our laws are decided by our senate. The average age of our senators is considerably higher than the average age of our constituents. They are living in the past. These drug laws are not being decided 100% based on how they affect the welfare of the consituents, but 50% on that and 50% on moral beliefs of the senate. And I think this mixture of morality and civil service is horrific.
Back to hard drugs, they are harmful. That is the bottom line. But I think that people can have legitimate reasons for using heroin, say stomach cancer, and doctors prescribe morphine all the time for this, provided you are in pretty deep shit; but what about people who have AIDS, or those who simply wish to end their lives? That is their decision, and I think it's fair to say that most people would not like to be told by the State that they have no authority to die if they so desire. And it is not the decision of the State to determine who needs heroin and who does not. It is OK to blow your head off with a shotgun, but NOT OK to shoot yourself up with a bunch of heroin and nod off into the night..?
I think hard drugs would have to be highly regulated, but I don't know how. They could be easily available and sold by govt-regulated institutions. But maybe they should be fairly expensive in that one would have to purchase insurance to use them...my point is that the small percentage of the population who would be interested in using hard drugs would be required to pay the burden of ALL the incidental costs of using these drugs -- whether it's rehab, accident insurance, whatever. I think that hard drugs should essentially be like cars, which are also potentially lethal, in that if you want to use them, you have to be financially capable of paying for the damage you've caused.
