We also came up with equally dangerous things like science, learning, discovery, economics, politics, etc...
I think there should be a test that everyone who takes crack or wants to take crack needs to undergo. Can they survive if they do a bungee jump without the bungee? If they can, then let them go nuts and stay the £%^& outta their way.
This is pretty much how I feel. Actually, I didn't intend to relate this to abortion at all, but I understand why you would think that. I'm actually very supportive of the principle of "my body, my choice", especially in cases of genital mutilation, contraceptives, alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs. I wouldn't call this a legitimately held conviction. I definitely think tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana should be legal, very strongly. I feel like the net negative of having a black market for harder drugs is probably worse than the net negative of having them legal. Definitely open to other opinions, though.
This model ignores the critical fact that drugs, by their very nature, grossly distort the decision-making capacity of the individual with regards to continued usage.
legalizing crack would be lol. shortest span of time between passage and repeal EVER - the crack legalization act. law-l
Your concerns are quite well-founded. As I indicated earlier in the thread, my views on this subject are quite tentative and certainly open to re-evaluation. (For some levity, here's a great Cracked.com article for the breathless "legalize all drugzz!!!11!" crowd that thinks doing so would be the panacea to all of society's ills). The problem as I see it is that we have this incredibly broad umbrella term for any substance that affects consciousness--"drugs"--that completely elides the wildly disparate risks and potential benefits that different drugs present. This is a very complex issue, and I think the discourse about it and policies ought to be commensurately complex. Public policy, however, incorporates virtually none of these distinctions, and the continued justification of the War on Drugs must subsequently fall back on outright, transparent, falsehoods (Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it's at least as dangerous as cocaine--really?). In addition, I think the current approach is pragmatically counter-productive in at least two respects. One, it lends a sort of alluring, "forbidden fruit" aura to drugs that makes acquiring and using them more appealing to rebellious adolescents, and two, and far more significantly, I think our relentless persecution and prosecution of drug users keeps drug users from rising out of the economic despair that makes habitual use of these substances so alluring as a crutch in the first place.
I'll never forget when we had an open mic in the quad at my junior college when the California legalization measure was on the ballot. One moron went up to the stage and cheerfully asked "Okay, how many of you out there, by a show of hands, have driven drunk? Okay, now, how many of you have driven high? I've done both, and driving high was clearly less dangerous". Ugh.
