DRUGS NEED TO REMAIN ILLEGAL

The recent Daily Aztec column, "Legalization will win U.S. war on
drugs," and its idea that drugs should be legalized left me
astonished. In that train of thought, giving addicts more access to
fulfill their fix is winning the war on drugs. Sure it will, just
like allowing children a fast food lunch option at school will curtail obesity.

In the same way that you wouldn't legalize speeding on freeways for
the reason that everyone already does it, legalizing lethal drugs
will only harm individuals and our communities. Laws are implemented
and enforced on a rational basis, where the state has a compelling
interest to protect the well-being of its citizens. Legalizing these
drugs negates our societal values and contradicts the social welfare.

This shouldn't be a liberal or conservative argument. It should be
about the right thing to do. It's in no way the government's role to
condone the sale of narcotics that produce such horrific
consequences. Is the war on drugs mismanaged? Absolutely. Under
funded? No doubt. Is the aforementioned cause enough for abolition of
its practice? Absolutely not.

Success in the war on drugs shouldn't be measured by the elimination
of the black market. The goals should be: limiting usage and impeding
potential users, while utilizing law enforcement to raid drug cartels
and safely protect others from this immoral lifestyle. It's utterly
impossible to prevent a small black market from existence. However,
it isn't entirely unrealistic to witness a decline in narcotics and
its accompanying contraband.

The pro-legalization argument uses alcohol and cigarettes as flimsy
references to legal substances that the government seems to have no
problem overlooking. However, upon closer examination, this couldn't
be further from the truth. Tobacco companies have faced an
uncountable amount of lawsuits, and laws limiting the usage of
cigarettes are expanding faster than oil profits. In short,
legislative action has just begun to scratch the surface of
restricting sales and usage of cigarettes and alcohol. Just look at
the surgeon general's warning on any pack of cigarettes.

Tobacco is also linked to a little thing called cancer, which is the
leading cause of death in the country. More shockingly, "one in every
five deaths in America is smoking related," according to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. "Every year smoking kills more
than 276,000 men and 142,000 women."

These figures would increase enormously if more severe drugs were
readily available.

I'm thoroughly unconvinced that usage will somehow decrease or remain
stagnant with increased availability. It seems to me (because of my
human fallibilities) if I walk past fresh, hot donuts, I might buy
one. However, if it's difficult to find the mouth-watering donuts, I
just may skip out.

I'm not advocating the outlaw of donuts or comparing illegal drugs to
them. I wish to prove that easier and more availability is much more
likely to cause an increase of usage, not a reduction.

Think of it this way, would you want your 15-year-old brother to have
easier access to hard drugs? Of course not - narcotics have ruined
far too many youth lives already. Lifting these deterrents is
flirting with tragedy.

Here's a hypothetical thought: If hard drugs become legal, the need
for prescriptions would discontinue. Why worry about whether or not
your doctor will prescribe Ritalin or any other pharmaceutical, when
cocaine and heroine are available over the counter? Surely, the
pro-legalization argument wouldn't advocate doctor-prescribed
permission to take these deadly drugs. Unless, by "doctor" they meant
by a deranged high school student. The argument is oxymoronic with
emphasis on the latter.

Giving up or throwing in the towel isn't an option that most
Americans consider. Legalizing lethal drugs because of our inability
to eliminate the demand is irrational and has disastrous
repercussions. If this logic was standard policy, laws wouldn't be
necessary. Lethal drug legalization should raise bright red flags for
every political party.

- -Conor Shapiro is a political science senior.