The War on Drugs
The War on Drugs
Category: News and Politics
Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 122, The War on Drugs
I'm surprised I didn't already write a blog on this one. It's so easy to destroy the idea behind this rediculous battle, which is fought in our streets every day.
Last year, when I was a senior in high school, we watched a video in my civics class on the War on Drugs. Its primary focus was how it was failing miserably. It ended implying the question, "What should we and what could we do about this?"
The instructor of my class room asked the question himself as he turned the video off.
The students offered the typical suggestions.
"More programs like D.A.R.E..."
Wait, what was that last one? Yeah, that was me.
Like usual, I'm the different one. "Usually different?" Oxymoron perhaps?
Once the class room was busy gasping, I continued to explain why the War on Drugs is bullshit, which I'll be doing again later in this blog.
The Civics instructor seemed very interested in my points, but being the instructor he always refrains from adding his own opinions, as he did on the Flag Burning issue (when he was clearly on my side, despite the fact I was practically the only student against illegalizing flag burning). So I could again tell he was leaning toward my side of the discussion. Then this choleric girl who sat behind me started one the most idiotic non Sequitor rants I've ever heard.
"You wouldn't understand!"
"You don't have parents who are alcoholics!"
"It's in our family, we can't help it! It's in our genetics! You don't know what it's like to live with that!"
I couldn't even BEGIN to point out what was wrong with that argument. Well, actually, I did begin to point out what was wrong with that argument.
"That has absolutely zero to do with the War on Drugs. It's non Sequitor."
"Don't try to throw those big words at me!"
"...Are you high? Because if you are, I promise I won't tell anyone."
"I'm going to kick yer ass if you open yer mouth again!"
"A threat is argumentum ad baculum fallacy."
"You son of a bitch...!" Yatta yatta yatta, she keeps cursing at me until the instructor stops her.
Anyways, that's as far as my debate with her went, but to point out everything faulty with her argument would take a while.
It was non Sequitor, I have no clue how being addicted to alcohol would justify making a War on Drugs. If anything it'd mean we shouldn't illegalize it, because some people gotz to have it. Perhaps she meant that Wars on Drugs would stop people from ever trying drugs and getting addicted. However, we were debating legalizing pot, not illegalizing alcohol. But still, I believe all drugs should be legal, so I'll address that argument. There is no alcoholic gene, or any genetic that makes you more likely to get addicted to a drug. None. Over 40 years of study have found... None. If you heard about there being one, then you were lied to.
But still, aren't drugs harmful and addicting? Many of them are, many have others claiming they are not. I'll be talking about all drugs, tobacco, alcohol, pot, all the recreational drugs, all of them. Some are worse to your body than others; some are more addictive than others. But that's all beside the point. I don't care how harmful or addictive they are. I don't. This is a much bigger issue than that.
This is about law. This is about what human beings in our nation are allowed to do and are not allowed to do. This is about rights and freedom, or the unfortunate lack-there-of. You are either against the freedom, or you are for the freedom.
If you are against the freedom, you have but one justification to force you views on others in this nation - self defense. You must show how letting them smoke their weed is directly harming you. If you cannot, then you are, then you are, then you ARE taking away a freedom for no reason at all. You are taking away a freedom because you feel like it. And if you are allowed to do something like that, then I should logically be allowed to kill you, take your life, because I feel like it. If that's a just reason to attack someone's liberty, then hell, I can use it against you any damn way I feel fit. Those who ban something because they feel like it, and do not let someone else take something from them when they feel like it, are hypocrites. Therefore they are illogical, unfair, immoral idiots.
So what defense is there illegalizing pot, for example? You have a reason or you don't. Which is it? Well, almost all of those morons out there will gladly claim they have such a reason (even though, in reality, they don't) and will spout the first safety issue they can dream up.
"Pot slows reaction time! More car crashes!"
Such like that argument there. Or many like it. To this there is but a simple response.
"So then why not illegalize driving under the influence of pot instead of illegalizing all pot?"
They only possible response to this they can have is, "But they still might do it anyways! We need to stop it at its source!"
Now you have several different refutes.
One is the tiny fact that pot usage is drastically GOING UP in this country, despite the law. They're going to have their pot anyways, yer just making criminals out of them, even when they aren't driving under its influence.
And second, what about alcohol? What about alcohol?! It is FAR more dangerous to drive with. It is FAR more deadly to consume. It is FAR more addictive. It is legal, and people drive under its influence. So you're saying we should illegalize alcohol?
And unless they want to automatically lose the debate, then have no choice but to say,
"Yes, we should illegalize alcohol."
Then all you have to do is throw in the prohibition act.
It increased crime so and such percent. It increased alcohol consumption so and such percent. It lead to underground dealings and the like. It put the criminals in control. It made the drink far more dangerous to consume thanks to much of it having to be made in bath tubs and whatnot. It put dangerous people along with its buying and selling. Everything went to hell.
Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the War on Drugs is doing. Exactly.
It is increasing crime. It is increasing the drug usage. It is putting the criminals in control of the substance. It is making the drugs less pure and more dangerous to consume. It is putting dangerous people with its buying and selling dealings. Everything is going to hell.
Gee, what do you know? Maybe if one single politician against drugs, ever, in their entire worthless lives, opened a damn history book, or even looked at the present situation, maybe then they'd get a little hint that possibly this isn't the best idea. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Idiots will do what idiots will do.
Politicians, by the way, gotta love them. They, on all sides, use the War on Drugs as a means to get more votes. A politician's life isn't controlling our funding, protecting our freedoms, it's not even fighting our freedoms. A politician's life is nothing more than "what can I do, what can I say, to get more votes?" Which is an argument against democracy in and of itself, but that's a different blog for a different time.
Drugs are bad. I'll be the first to admit. It's a good thing we have programs like D.A.R.E., and informative class time. It teaches us all valuable lessons. There is nothing with informing people of dangers. However, human beings are more sheep than anything else. When they're young they'll believe anything if you preach it hard enough. They should believe this. But if you don't also couple it with preaching of the freedom of choice, they'll start to get it into their heads that just because something isn't the best idea to use, they are also justified in making it illegal to use. People think that all bad ideas should be illegal. They're that stupid.
Politicians know this, and they utilize it. They know kids were preached to about the horrors of drugs without also having freedom of choice preached along side it. All they have to do is be tough on something that is widely regarded as a "bad idea" and people will think it's a good idea. They get more votes and thanks to you, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to you these are the people who get into the most powerful positions in our country. The brave, honest, and wisest of the politicians can never acquire office as long as the idiots are in majority. Which they very much are.
You cannot illegalize something because it's a bad idea! That isn't what warrants stealing away freedom! Because if this actually is the philosophy you follow, you are technically against freedom. If you only allow good ideas, then there are not ideas! There are no choices! You're all the same whether you like it or not. You all must come to the best conclusions in your lives. When asked if we should illegalize a bad idea, the average human, being a shallow piece of shit, without so much as an ounce of thought process, will reflexively say "yes."
Consequently, if it were not for our bill of rights being preached as "good ideas," we'd all be complete slaves.
We all have the right to do anything so long as it does not force anything on or from anyone else directly. You may not force anything on or from another person unless it is direct and appropriate counter force of them forcing something on or from you. Your liberty only ends where another's beings. That's it. If you care, in the least, about freedom, choice, and humanity, then that is it.
If there is an instance where an activity does intrude on your safety and liberty, then illegalize what makes it so. You keep alcohol legal, and illegalize driving with it, do the same with pot and others. That way you maximize freedom.
Drugs are not good; I have never taken them and never will. I personally love the content of my mind and would not ever choose to alter it. But that's just me. If someone else wants to do something to their own mind and their own body, and it doesn't affect me, then God damnit, they can. The one who tries to stop them for is a tyrant. Big or small, they are evil, stupid, irresponsible, and the true criminal. I don't care how many people are on their side (argumentum ad populm/numerum), nor do I care what title or name they carry (argumentum ad hominem/verecundiam), nor do I care what badge they may or may not where. They are attacking someone's freedom for no reason other than they feel the need to. They want to make them the same. They want to arrest them for a bad choice. (If you want to arrest someone for making a bad choice, you'd have to arrest everyone who paid to see Nacho Libre.)
These people who seek to force others from taking drugs are criminals. Unlike the pot heads, THEY are forcing things on and from others. If they are an officer of the law, or a politician signing a policy, they're a criminal, and they require jail time. Maybe not so much the officers. They're just puppets. But they did know what their job entailed, and they signed up to do it for cash.
Wouldn't it be better if all the police time and money wasted in the War on Drugs could go to other things? And when I mean wasted, I mean wasted. Not only is it money going into a bad cause against freedom of choice, but it's not working anyways. It's only getting worse. Any side you're on in this issue, you must admit the money and man power is waste.
Wouldn't it be better if drugs were sold and bought like other drugs? Like cigarettes or alcohol? Think of how much safer the dealings would be! Think of how much the crime would go down! Think of how better regulated and safer the quality of the drugs would be! How many lives would this save?
Now I could go on about the medical uses of drugs such as pot, but that's pointless. Whether it's medically helpful or not is beside the point, it should be legal anyways. Completely.
I have destroyed every argument for the War on Drugs. I have killed them all. There are several variants, but the same reasoning applies to destroy them. "Those on drugs neglect their children and hurt their futures, and even their health!"
Then make child neglect against the law! Make starving yer kids illegal! I'm pretty sure it ALREADY IS, you stupid dumbass. Let's put some of the money into going after these assholes.
The same reasoning is there. You are trying to illegalize a personal choice; all of your arguments will be stupid. I will be able to compare it to alcohol and smash you there. I will be able to repeat my simple reasoning of illegalizing the PROBLEM instead of the drug. Everywhere you duck and turn you will forever be the idiotic criminal. Because, in reality, it is what you are if you are for the War on Drugs. Don't think I'm fucking around with you. This isn't a game. You steal freedom, you waste money, and you cost lives. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 122, The War on Drugs