GIVE US THE RIGHT TO EXPERIMENT

Adrian Zakrewski Argues For The Legalisation Of Drugs

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an
individual than the use of the drug itself."
US President Jimmy Carter, 2nd October, 1977.

In the emotive debate about drugs two distinct issues get confused - the
relative dangers of various compounds and the merits or otherwise of
legalisation. What is clear is that the Government's 'war on drugs' is not
going to be won via the criminal justice system. Fatal accidents happen
every day of the week, on the roads and in the home. The answer does not
lie in making these activities illegal but in education. Fully informed
adults are likely to exercise more rational choice. Unfortunately it is
difficult to educate in a climate of fear which the 'drugs war' mentally
engenders.

Drugs could be quite legal, and controlled in a similar fashion to alcohol
and cigarettes, while government and other social institutions campaign to
discourage their use. There would be no inconsistency with the adoption of
such a policy. Some of us are naturally curious about the effects of vaious
compounds and the curious citizen should have open access to information
about anything else she wants without having some other person's ideology
superimposed on her during the course of her learning. Adults are free to
sit and watch television all day long or carry on interminable
conversations with their cat. We should also be demanding the freedom to
use a drug when we choose to do so. So long as we do not interfere with the
freedom or well being of any other person we should be left alone by the
state and its agents.

Herein lies the bone of contention. Mr and Mrs Do-Gooder say 'But illness
addictions or fatalities caused by drugs affect the rest of the family and
society in general if they resort to crime or require medical treatment
which the rest of us have to pay for.' The Do-Gooders are quite correct but
the crucial question is to what extent do we wish to live in a patriarchal
society. Do we really want a 'nanny state' protecting us from ourselves,
cosseting us from any injury or illness ensuring that we take no risks with
our valuable lives? Without risks life would be drab and meaningless. Leah
Betts' death was a tragedy for her family but would her parents be any less
heartbroken if Leah had died falling from a horse? After all, as far as we
can calculate, more people die from horseriding each year than from taking
Ecstasy.

Those of us who subscribe to the principle of liberty must be outspoken
regarding the need to phase out laws proscribing drug use by adults, and
instead to be replaced by an increase in the dissemination of truth about
the nature and effects - positive or negative - of different drugs. Legal
drugs would provide the opportunity to use the immense 'drug war' funds for
far more useful and desperately needed social improvements in employment,
homelessness, drug dependency and mental illness. Drug related crime would
be slashed at a stroke (why go to the hassle of burgling someone's home and
scoring crap from a dodgy dealer when you can acquire your heroin cheaply
and of guaranteed quality from the chemist?) and the energies of law
enforcement professionals can once again be directed towards crime that
deserve their skill and attention.

Legalisation will allow research into the possible therapeutic effects of
drugs to flourish and also undermine the Mafia-like gangs who currently
control the bulk of the drugs trade.

Finally, a quote from the 'godfather' of Ecstasy, Alexander Shulgin, from
his book 'Pihkal'. 'I, as a responsible, adult human being, will never
concede the power, to anyone, to regulate my choice of what I put into my
body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction,
is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the
Customs Agent. I am the Coast Guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual
Government of this territory and only the laws I choose to enact within
myself are applicable.

'Now, were I to be guilty of invading or sabotaging that same territory in
others, then the external law of the Nation has every right - indeed the
responsibilty - to prosecute me in the agreed upon manner. But what I
think, where I focus my awareness, what biochemical reactions I choose to
cause within the territorial boundaries of my own skin are not subject to
the beliefs, morals, laws or preferences to any other person.

'I am a sovereign state, and I feel that my borders are far more sacred
than the politically drawn boundaries of any country.'