’)Argument concering illegal drug use
By: Karen Hewell
I was fortunate enough to read a thought provoking, well supported article arguing for the legalization of methamphetamine a few days ago. To say that it got me thinking is an understatement – initially, all signs seemed to point to go, as opinions were statistically and historically supported, the problem and proposed solutions clearly and simply articulated, and a complicated issue made easy to understand. It was then that the alarm bell went off – simple to understand? That was the problem. Here it was, an argument that taps into the physical, psychological, and intellectual facets of a society, and it was being supported by surprisingly narrow viewpoints. Initially, the statements made seem to have no weaknesses. Firstly, this is the original source from which I am referring:http://www.ithp.org/articles/legalizemeth.html
It’s clear that any argument supported almost entirely on the basis of freedom will be sure to tug at a few American heartstrings. We are the ‘land of the free’, and with more and more Americans under the impression that just such freedom is slowly being sucked from our metaphorical veins from a lecherously left-leaning White House, it’s clear that just such an argument is more apt to sway than ever before. The addition of a fiscal aspect is essentially covering bases not already won over by the freedom argument; rationally thinking, structure creating, resourceful citizens harshly aware of their ever-shrinking pocketbooks are sure to prick up their ears to the tune of ‘less spending’. Then again, with just such an argument as the legalization of a controlled, highly addictive, and dangerous substance like methamphetamine, the blanket assumption that the benefits of legalizing it – fiscally or otherwise – wouldn’t be promptly overshadowed by the possible catastrophic social consequences is a biased and fairly narrow-minded one at best.
To be fair, the approach is noble – freeing up what appears to be ill advised spending for a drug war that, in many viewpoints, essentially doesn’t work, is a good idea; an argument that could be, for example, applied to a drug like marijuana. The valid attention paid to the issue of freedom when it comes to the choice a citizen makes over what substances they consume is equally influential when applied to many recreational drugs. Most (there is a very good reason this is italicized) Americans have the capacity to understand the consequences of consuming illicit drugs, and how this could affect not only themselves, but those closest to them. Therefore, with the average reader of an article on the legalization of meth being a fairly educated, stable and intelligent adult expressly aware of their own livelihood – and the fragility of said livelihood – it seems like a fair argument to say that we, as citizens, should be given full control over our own ingestion of whatever harmful things we’d like.
Fortunately for the delivery – however, unfortunately for the validity - the narrow audience at which the original article was intended is also the social sample of which the author is determining his argument upon. With such statements as “a free society requires the drug war to end” and “the initial issue of who decides [freedom over oneself] must be resolved first”, the blanket sweep is set in motion even before any real basis for argument is assessed. It is true that the questions and answers posed by the author are valid – the problem is that a whole other slew of questions are never answered, and even worse, never mentioned. The argument, when limited to the two factors of freedom and finances, is crippled in its simplicity and inability to see the issue from another, more socio-psychological viewpoint.
As a sociology student, I am taught to take on a dual viewpoint of important social issues, both of the society as a whole, and how that society is influenced by the individual’s psychological factors. To say the least, it is not an exact science – sociologists are at the constant mercy of the outliers; those pesky little weirdos at the ends of the bell curve. While we are taught to understand that this roughly five percent is difficult to include in any authentic way into a theory meant to illustrate the majority, we are still constantly reminded that, regardless of the small percentage that this outlying population when compared to the whole, they are still part of the whole, and need to be considered. Ultimately, any theory designed around the assumptions of the majority is forever flawed in its exclusion of the subjects that didn’t follow the norm. To put it simply - not everyone is the same, and to assume that one thing will work for everyone is a very misguided attempt at solving a problem that cannot be solved easily.
With this thought process in mind, it is clear to see the flaw in this particular argument for drug legalization – in particular, methamphetamine. Firstly, it’s important to understand the argument of freedom when all human factors are included, and how ‘freedom’ may not be as simple as we’d like to believe.
With the well-documented side effects, dangers, and consequences of meth use, it seems natural to assume that the choice to inflict this kind of harm on one’s body would be, for lack of a better word, a stupid thing to do. I am not arguing against the fact that it very clearly is. However, when the author suggests that such effects are clear to everyone, and that particular ‘everyone’ should have the freedom to inflict it upon himself or herself, if they choose to do so. He is, of course, coming from the perspective that users became users as equally capable of understanding these consequences, and operating within generally equal social context that would provide this deterrence. He even goes on to say that he is a ‘good dad’, and highlights how he may help prevent his children from becoming users themselves. What he fails to recognize is that he is one such factor in a large sample, and falls comfortably within the majority of the bell curve. The outliers in this situation are those that a) do not have any positive parental or adult guidance to speak of, and b) have not received the same level of education that would contribute to an understanding of what meth is capable of doing to a human body. With that in mind, it is clear that the author may have misunderstood one of the intentions of making certain substances illegal – to prevent the birth of new users.
I am not arguing that those within these negative social environments would be deterred by legality alone. However, it does serve as a failsafe when education and social guidance fails, not to mention that these social environments in which children and teens live may well be characterized by one or more parental figures being current meth users. So, why not simply control the substance so that both the parents and adolescents may acquire safer versions of the drug, thus saving the government billions of dollars as well as restoring the freedom of these individuals to make their own decisions? The answer is simple, and ironically showcased in the original article arguing for legalization.
Under the freedom argument, meth is put into context with other controlled substances, like tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. While these are all considered recreational ‘drugs’, there is one major difference that changes the way in which they should be dealt with – that being their capacity for addiction.
Unlike tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, meth has the proven ability to ‘hook’ a user from the first try, even those not pre-dispositioned to addiction. When a misguided youth, as I outlined in the last paragraph, decides to try smoking or drinking, they do not run the same risk as they would if they were to try meth. That is, smoking and drinking is equally capable of destroying a life – however, the likelihood of this occurring is vastly lower than meth simply given that said misguided youth wouldn’t be heavily addicted after one experimentation. They may continue given their social and personal factors, but will most likely not continue because of a physiological imperative to do so. Meth, however, introduces this additional and important factor of risk, therefore placing it in a category outside of other recreational drugs. That being said, putting it under the idealistic umbrella of ‘freedom’ is ill-advised, as ‘freedom’ is as imagined as the psychological characteristics of addiction are. So, could it be argued that when societal predispositions like socio-economic foundations of potential new users of meth are taken into account, we are not all operating under the same factors, and so the notion of freedom will mean something different to each of us? Can it be said that the legality of meth may be perceived as freedom to one that has social support to choose to not engage in meth, but may be different from another person of the same age who considers ‘freedom’ as having an additional support to deter their use of meth, and promoting their ‘freedom’ from addiction?
Additionally, with the capacity for meth’s addictive qualities, the same youth that may even have supportive social networks have the same risk as an ‘at risk’ youth, seeing as, when meth is put under the same jurisdiction as tobacco and alcohol – two things whose use are definitely not slowed by a ‘legal age’ – any youth are equally capable of getting a hold of it, as it is no longer a drug that you find exclusively in ‘bad circles’. As for the argument of the government ‘sending the wrong message to users’ being attacked by the author, what he should consider is that the government wouldn’t be sending the wrong message to users by instituting legal methamphetamines, but instead sending a very clear message to potential users. That, coupled with the addiction danger, creates the problem of putting something as exponentially more dangerous and volatile than tobacco and alcohol in the same legal bubble. Forget the argument of ‘message’, and consider the argument of ‘availability’.
It is not my intention to say that the proposed ‘ending of the drug war’ does not have its merits both socially and financially. It is true that the idea behind it is sound, given that it is proposed that this money still be used to combat drugs, but in a different way – in this case, the author suggests that it may be targeted toward education and awareness. However, it is not to say that ‘education and awareness’ are the answer either; just as throwing money at the punishment of current meth users is not the answer. Throwing money at education and awareness is something that has already been proven to not necessarily be effective, as numerous researchers have found with their studies – any simple Google search on the effects of programs like D.A.R.E. will support this. Again, the issue of legalizing meth is not an issue that can be boiled down to a narrow ‘freedom’ argument, nor can it be supported on the notion of better spending either. I am not arguing against continuing to control meth and other dangerously addictive drugs in the same manner that we are – what I am saying is that the government legalization and control of such a substance provided the argument of freedom is one that is likely to backfire, and cause just as many problems as it solves. Given that this is not a simple problem, it can’t be assumed that it will have a simple solution. What is needed is a creative way in which to hone the ‘drug war’, shifting focus onto understanding the biological and psychological effects of drugs, as well as the physiology of addiction, and not to metaphorically throw in the towel in the perceived ‘defeat’ of a war that no one necessarily assumed could be won in the first place. That introduces the slippery slope of how to determine whether or not a ‘war’ on anything can be won, but that’s for another time and another two-thousand words.
More than anything, this is intended as a plea for more discussion on the neglected aspects of the argument for the legalization of methamphetamine, in order to have a solid platform on which to make assumptions. As the argument stands, it is in dire need of more support, covering all angles of the argument from more viewpoints – in my humble opinion, most importantly a viewpoint that addresses what ‘freedom’ is, how one person’s freedom can differ from another, and how these varying definitions of freedom can very easily begin to encroach on each other. More than anything, it is clear that no clear answer for this specific subject is in sight, and in order to find one, more time – and thought – must be paid.