My finals are done! So so so happy about that.
And now, a philosophical/political question for all of you.
How should a country decide what drugs are legal or illegal? Obviously we banned alcohol there for awhile, and that didn't work out so well, so the ban was repealed.
So currently we allow tobacco and alcohol. What about marijuana? What about heroin? What about cocaine? I realize that these drugs are destructive and addictive, to varying degrees. But so are alcohol and nicotine, and both of those are legal.
I kind of did a thought experiment here, so bear with me.
I remember reading somewhere recently that during Prohibition alcohol use was roughly 40% of what it was before and after Prohibition. I don't know how they came up with that statistic, but I'll use it for this.
Every drug has an inherent cost to society in it. For alcohol, there's addictions and drunk driving. For cigarettes, there's lung cancer. And so on. Cocaine, marijuana, heroin, they all have their costs too.
And every drug, if banned, also has a cost involved in fighting it.
I think it's reasonable to assume that most substances would follow the model of alcohol, and that usage now is roughly 40% of what it would be if legalized.
Now, which is greater, the cost to society from the extra drug use if it was legalized, or the cost of fighting the drug? If the cost to society is greater, the drug should be banned. If it's the cost of fighting the drug, it should be legalized.
Alcohol, for example, can be hugely destructive. But it's so easy to make and so socially acceptable that it wasn't worth the money we spent fighting it back in those days.
Based on all this, marijuana should probably be legalized. It's not hard to grow your own, it's not nearly as addictive as most other illegal substances, and it's probably not destructive enough to warrant the billions that we spend fighting it.
That said, cocaine, heroin, LSD, ecstacy, I think any of those are probably worth fighting; they're much harder to produce on your own, and they're much more destructive. Meth, I'm honestly not sure. It's hugely destructive, but it's also relatively easy to make.
Thoughts? Is cost-of-fighting vs. cost-to-society a good way of determining whether something should be legalized? If not, why not?
Comments (6)
...on the question of meth...come visit me in the ER some saturday night...around 2 am...and experience the pleasure of taking care of an extremely violent meth patient...who at the moment is intent on not only his own destruction, but everyone else’s...emergency medicine has a way of creating a great disdain for the effects of chemical highs...cost-to-society deals with human souls...cost-of-fighting deals with the abstract concept of money...a few of my thots...
...loon1900
two opinions.
that one was free
the cost of healthcare is insane. alcoholism is not just taken up by people who can afford to pay for the problems it causes them. it's a common problem among low-income people without insurance or a lot of resources. so hospitals, the government, and ultimately you as a taxpayer end up paying for the effects of alcohol on the population's health. who wants another legalized drug to exacerbate the problem?
secondly--i understand that you can't legislate morality and non-destructive lifestyles. however, if you legalize this stuff, it just seems like it's another resignation; as if the government is approving it. part of it is 'cause it's helping, and part of it is the principle. to me, it seems worth the effort that's being made to fight it.
smoking marijuana destroys brain cells and IMHO we are already falling behind academically
oh and congrats on finals.. i agree it is wonderful to be out
Off on a rabbit trail here, but you might find this interesting, as I did. Matt, you remember how ghastly sick I was with my pregnancies, with nothing but a few folk remedies (that didn't work) for relief. I wasn't about to go smoke marijuana but I really really wished they would do some serious research on it so it could be all proper and prescribed and maybe even delivered in another form, like a pill or an asthma-type inhaler.
Matt, I appreciate your "thought experiment" Here are a few thoughts, not necessarily MY opinion, just kind of thinking in print.
If marijuana were legal, it could be taxed and the revenue used for rehab programs or fighting the use of "hard" drugs.
Maybe instead of banning drug use we should simply ban the sale and/or production of the stuff.
Maybe the church should put more effort into "soul care" ministries that would help individuals deal with the pain in their life that makes drug use appealing.
Hooray for finals being over! Is your school year divided into quarters? The Statistics class I'm taking isn't over until the end of April. I am VERY MUCH looking forward to THAT class being over!
Hmm. I'm not sure I should give my opinion away on this one.