Pubdate: Wed, 30 Nov 2005
Source: Observer, The (Notre Dame, IN, Edu)
Copyright: 2005 The Observer
Contact: http://www.nd.edu/~observer/today/edletter.html
Website: http://www.ndsmcobserver.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4037
Author: Alex Forshaw

WHY FIGHT DRUGS?

I completely agree with Ian Ronderos ("The cost of the real war lost,"
Nov. 29) that the drug war has been a fiasco, and that everything up
to and including cocaine, meth and heroin should be legalized -
assuming that the vast majority of people are rational. I have never
had the "pleasure" of trying cocaine myself, but I knew plenty of
people who did, and the vast majority of them still lead normal (or,
to most people, quasi-normal), functional lives, even if they might
still indulge in it one to a few times a year. Ditto for the one
person I knew who occasionally dipped into OxyContin, the Midwest's
"hillbilly heroin." (I honestly believe that most students at this
school could occasionally use cocaine and lead otherwise functional
lives, and ditto for most other hard drugs. After all, studies show
that only heroin rivals nicotine in terms of addictive potential.)
Even mildly future-oriented people can cope as one person described:
"My girlfriend didn't see what the big deal was with crack, she tried
it three times and then she started to crave it, so she stopped."

Unfortunately, there is another side of America, the significant
"underclass" - both urban and rural - whose people have little to live
for and who perceive no chance of advancing beyond dull, low-paying
menial jobs and distinctly unglamorous lifestyles, who don't value the
future because they have no rational basis to do so. When I did menial
labor at a large business over several high-school summers with a lot
of "low-SES" people, I saw a mindset utterly opposite from that of a
student at a top-50 college. One worker had to pay garnishments to
five different women for six different children (all illegitimate).
The overwhelming majority of the workers there had illegitimate children.

Now, if you care so little about the future that you'd rather
repeatedly risk a lot of future income for illegitimate kids than use
condoms, and if the definition of childlike behavior - stay with me -
is the inability to defer gratification now for more gratification
later, how can the state not treat people with that outlook like
infants? If everyone is equal under the law, how can the law not cater
to the lowest (significant) common denominator?

I am as libertarian as the next guy, but the fact is that not all
people care enough about the future not to go off a cliff (and be high
at the same time) in the present. And while "you should be able to do
whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anybody else," legalized
drugs definitely will be my problem when my Medicare dollars start
paying for over-coked livers and new teeth for meth tweaks. (Don't see
it? Treating obesity is now a Medicare liability. Do you think obese
people need treatment more than drug addicts do? Have you no
compassion?) You can either allow people a wide berth to potentially
destroy themselves or coddle them with a sprawling welfare state, but
you can't do both.

The legalizers' beef isn't really with America's drug laws, but rather
with America's values, which have pretensions to "rugged
individualism" but actually enthusiastically embrace trial lawyers and
welfare sprawl. To see what happens when a society does a 180 from
collectivism to individualism, libertarians should take a look at
Russia, where the fittest are certainly thriving - and the unfit can
join the mafia, overdose to death or starve.

It's a small wonder that the legalization diehards ignore the real
costs of legalization (they'd have no audience), and a great irony
that those who hate Big Brother the most have been most blind to its
infantilizing effects on three generations of Americans.

Alex Forshaw, sophomore, St. Edward's Hall, Nov. 29 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake