ANTI-DRUG WAR DOES NOT EQUAL PRO-DRUG

Since I have become the leader of the Virginia Tech chapter of
Students for Sensible Drug Policy, I have continually encountered the
same question: Are you pro-drug? Individuals make the assumption that
the fact that I oppose ineffective anti-drug legislation somehow
implies that I advocate drug use.

In a sense, I find such an assumption sort of confusing.

Does being pro-choice imply that one is pro-abortion? Does supporting
one's right to eat fatty foods from McDonald's suggest that you are
pro-obesity? The simple answer is no. In both of those scenarios, we
have acknowledged the fact that a person has the right do what she
pleases with his or her own body, so long as nobody else is hurt.

Let us briefly consider the purpose of the law. We have laws to
prevent people from murdering or raping one another.

We have laws to prevent theft and unethical business
practices.

In each of those scenarios, the law serves to protect people from what
other people might do to them. There is a victim and a victimizer.
When it comes to drug use, however, the victim and the victimizer are
the same person.

The one who snorts the coke or shoots up the heroin is the same person
who ultimately suffers because of it. So whom are drug laws protecting
you from: yourself? It seems the overall purpose of drug laws is to
protect people from consuming products that are detrimental to their
health.

If that is the case, why not pass a law that bans people from eating
Twinkies? After all, eating too many sugary foods can also lead to
obesity, diabetes and decreased life expectancy. Why not mandate that
everybody exercise at least three times a week? Aside from the fact
that such laws would be expensive and difficult to enforce, they
probably would not be very effective.

Each individual is responsible for his own physical well-being. No
government mandate can determine how people will ultimately act toward
their own bodies.

Point in fact: There is still a large amount of drug use despite the
fact that drugs are illegal.

Almost 50 percent of surveyed American adults have reported using
marijuana, and about 17 percent have reported using cocaine.

Perhaps it should be considered that irresponsible behavior toward
one's own body, while not a good thing, is a matter of personal choice.

A person has the choice to stop eating fatty foods and start
exercising on a regular basis.

Alcoholics can pursue treatment for their addiction without fear of
legal sanctions. Obesity and alcoholism are regarded as health issues.

Why, then, is drug use considered a legal issue?

In fact, a study by the RAND Corporation concluded that drug treatment
is a cheaper and more effective method of dealing with the drug
problem than law enforcement.

Ideally, society should make drug treatment easily available for those
who seek it, and create an environment, which is not hostile to those
with drug problems.

For example, after Portugal decriminalized drugs in the early 2000s,
there was a rise in the number of citizens who sought treatment for
drug addiction.

Drug enforcement, on the other hand, ruins lives far beyond the point
of the actual conviction. For example, Indiana Congressman Mark Souder
recently proposed an amendment to the Student Aid and Fiscal
Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which would have denied federal financial
aid to students with minor drug offenses had it passed. (Luckily it
was killed due to the efforts of SSDP chapters around the country.)
Furthermore, people with criminal drug convictions on their records
are less likely to receive jobs than people without such convictions,
even if they have cleaned up their acts. These measures seem
counter-intuitive because people who are denied jobs or an education
are more likely to relapse into drug use. In essence, making drug use
a law enforcement issue instead of a health issue creates a hostile
environment in which drug users are unable to receive help to pursue
the necessary life-style changes for fear of putting a red flag on
themselves.

One of the consequences of living in a free country is that freedom
implies that each individual is responsible for his own actions.

This includes what he chooses to do to his own body. Drug use and
other unhealthy behaviors are negative lifestyle choices that can
cause a great deal of harm, but since there is no distinction between
the victim and the victimizer, it is absurd to use law enforcement to
deal with the problem. Rather, society should create an open and
positive environment that encourages people who partake in such
unhealthy behaviors to personally seek treatment for their actions.

The role of the law is not to protect people from themselves -- if that
was the case, then all the bars in downtown Blacksburg would have been
closed a long time ago.