Eamon,
Well said. I agree with you. My son told me he had seen CAT scan photos of ecstasy, too. One problem is I think many people don’t trust the words of those who are trying to prevent them from making a mistake. Intellectually we say no, but desire says yes. It takes information, the right decision, and self-control.
Scott,
Scott Waddell:
Well yes, it is political in the sense that government enacts laws. Are you trying to suggest that all laws are partisan? Like posting speed limits to deter people from blowing through school zones at 75mph is sleezy partisan legistlating?
No, not that they are all partisan, just that they are all political. I have the view that most politicians today couldn’t separate the politics from their honest opinion on what is good for the people even if they honestly tried to. Most legislators don’t even read the bills they sign; for example the Patriot Act was signed into law before a single legislator had even read it.
That isn’t to say they don’t do some things right. After all, the voters demand a certain few obvious things like not allowing traffic to go 75 in school zones. Just remember, though, that if one of those legislators went through a school zone at 75 they would not get a ticket because they don’t have to follow the laws they pass because they have Congressional immunity.
With regard to the topic at hand, I mostly wished to address your assertion that there is likely some merit in a law simply because it was done by popular/political demand. For further proof, I need only mention Roe v. Wade.
The bottom line is that no matter the motivations for illegalizing recreational drugs, even if you can show their imprudence, they are not unreasonable or intrisicly immoral, and are therefore binding.
First, they are binding in that they are the law of the land, enforceable by the executive branch of the United States.
Are you saying that they are morally binding as well as legally binding since they are not unreasonable or immoral and they derive from legitimate authority? If that’s your argument I think it’s a good one. Here we aren’t resolving whether it is intrinsically immoral to do drugs, just whether the law respects our opinions that it shouldn’t be the way it is.
The drug-laws-create-drug-problems in no way excuses one from obeying them.
You’re right; it doesn’t. Users, you are at your own risk; I am not condoning your behavior nor can I save you from the law if you choose to break it.
It does raise the question whether the drug laws are doing more harm than good. Also I’m quite certain that young people who have or would try drugs are not impressed with anti-drug PSAs which say they are responsible for terrorism. Young people are very defensive about being blamed for the world’s ills, especially in this case. It takes two to tango; the drug users and the drug user chasers.
Also when maybe a third of the population or more has a habit which requires them to hide from the police, they will be suspicious of and uncooperative with the police even though otherwise they are lawful. In this way, you could regard that as a societal ill that wouldn’t exist without the drug laws. If we quit making our poor police officers enforce unpopular and ineffective laws we would free up their time, quit putting them into no-win situations, and almost immediately slash the power of the drug trade in. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if legislators who promoted the repeal of anti-drug laws became terrorism targets.
Alan
Sounds to me like you are looking for someone to say it’s ok to do something YOU KNOW is wrong. Illicit drug use is not something anyone should condone…ever. Did you ever see what “just a little cocaine” does to a baby ?