I should make this a regular feature. It's kind of different and...interactive.
Anyway, today's question is something else I've been thinking about for a while, and it has to do with drugs. I bet you're all paying attention now.
Question: Some people say that it's hypocritical to make alcohol legal while making drugs like marijuana illegal because they're all mind-altering substances, but does it make any difference that alcohol can be consumed in moderation or used for social purposes without causing serious problems, while the only real purpose of smoking marijuana, shooting heroin, etc. is to get high?
In other words, if you drink beer, you might not be doing it to get drunk. You might just like beer. However, if you smoke marijuana, you're most likely doing it because you enjoy being high on marijuana. Should that make a difference in legislation?
What do you think?
(NOTE: I'm personally opposed to drug legalization, but I'm not necessarily trying to argue for or against that position by pointing out this difference. I just think it's an interesting question.)
Posted by CD on March 16, 2004 12:27 PMHere's the thing. I like marijuana. I love the high I got from it. The problem? It's illegal and I have 4 kids I have to set an example for. If it was legal would I smoke it? No, I still have an example to set. Do I drink? Yes, on occassion. I drink because I like to. My husband drinks beer all the time; because he likes it. Should the reasons you gave be considered in legislation? I don't know. My kids see me drink, but they don't see me drunk. There is no way I could smoke and the kids not know that I am high. Maybe your right and those things need to be considered.
Posted by: Lani at March 16, 2004 04:01 PMI'm still not sure if that logic could justify it, actually, but it does seem to make some sense. I don't know if we should expect the government to allow free access to something that serves no purpose other than to alter people's state of mind.
Incidentally, that's why i don't buy the (usually libertarian) argument that if government has the power to make dangerous drugs illegal, it can also logically make dangerous foods illegal. Food serves another purpose. Drugs don't.
Slightly OT, this is just an unlikely slippery slope, so nobody should take it too seriously, but: If you've read "Brave New World," you know that the government in that story actually gives the people drugs ("Soma") in order to keep them from leaving their predetermined place in life. I wonder if full legalization could eventually lead in that direction...
Just a thought.
Posted by: CD at March 16, 2004 08:14 PMI've been curious about that also, whenever I've heard that analogy.
And for the record, I'm a recovering addict/alchoholic who is in favor of legalization. Predominately became that way after spending enough time in areas where the drug trade operates that I became convinced that knocking the profit margins of the trade down through the basement is the only real way to curtail imports.
Posted by: Ironbear at March 20, 2004 07:37 PM"Incidentally, that's why i don't buy the (usually libertarian) argument that if government has the power to make dangerous drugs illegal, it can also logically make dangerous foods illegal." - CD
Hrmmm... if someone is making that claim, CD, that's a pretty good sign that no matter what they claim to be, they're not a libertarian. They're also not gifted with logic and critical thought in a major way either, because the same arguments that apply to the regulation being unable to stem the flow of drugs also applies to regulations being unable to curtail "dangerous" foods.
*snicker* Just from idle curiousity, what defines a dangerous food, anyway?
Posted by: Ironbear at March 20, 2004 07:42 PMBest DVD Ripper can transfer DVD movie to iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, PSP, PS3, Wii, Zune, Xbox, Sony Walkman, Sony XPERIA, Google Phone, BlackBerry and all the Mobile Phones.