|
When I first took the bench, in a very rural county, I was arraigning 4-5 people per week who were "tweaking"(under the influence of meth) while I was informing them of the charges against them. I estimate that close to 1/3 of the families in the county were harmed by methamphetamine in some form or fashion. Luckily, the law putting pseudoephedrine greatly reduced that number.
When we talk about "legalizing drugs", we need to understand the distinction of the effect of each drug we discuss. For example, if a person's normal seratonin level is zero, at the moment of sexual climax it would be 50. Now, a person on cocaine achieves a seratonin level of 300. Want to guess what the level is for a person on meth? 1000. Stated differently, a person who gets high on meth for the first time feels 1000 times better than his/her first sexual climax.
These seratonin levels are of immense importance when discussing legalization. Legalizing tobacco and alcohol, no doubt chemicals that cause harm to the human body, gives easy access by the citizenry to substances that cause addiction over a (somewhat) long period of time. On the contrary, methamphetamine, for all intents and purposes, causes an addict at first use. And why not? Hell, the user feels 1000x better than the best orgasm he/she ever had. Of course, everybody has enough knowledge of drug addicts to realize the hazards upon the occurance of such addiction.
While I heartily concur that the war on drugs has not went well, I cannot agree with the proposition that we should legalize drugs. Meth, coke, heroin, etc, being available for sale on a store shelf, is simply more than this country, or its citizens, can handle. I would hate to guess how many children I have put into foster care, terminated parental rights, etc., because the parents are addicts. What would that number be if crackhead mom and dad could just run to the local pharmacy to buy drugs, instead of having to find a pusher somewhere on the bad side of town? Moreover, while we say that addicts should have to fend for themselves vis-a-vis medical care, the reality is that those folks will go into emergency rooms, and will be given medical treatment at taxpayer expense.
I further agree that the war on drugs has been expensive. However, as our country ages, I suggest that we really examine what we want to spend our tax money on. As we all know, within the last year, the federal government has spent a lot of money on TARP, bailouts, and is looking to spend even more money on health care. Maybe the old idea of a government that merely kept its citizenry safe and just, as well as promoting commerce was a better idea. Imagine where the drug war would be if just 10% of the federal paychecks now sent to DC bureaucrats were instead paid to narcotics agents. No doubt the drug war would still go on, but we would have something to show for our tax money expenditures. But, my conservatism rant will have to wait.
craigiepooh
|