You Can't Fix Stupid.
Page 7
recreational drug, and, see if benefits don’t outweigh the costs.
One of the benefits of legalizing recreational drugs would be the squelching a lot of criminal activity associated with the growing, smuggling and selling of illegal drugs. Legalization would put the drug cartels pretty much out of business, and almost immediately. Furthermore, there would be an immediate drop in the expense of the law enforcement needed to combat illegal drugs; especially if the now legal drugs were less expensive than the illegal drugs. Freeing up those expenses would create resources which could be diverted to combat the other more negative aspects of recreational drug use through education, prevention and treatment. Not to mention the fact that legalizing recreational drugs would be an economic boost to society – a new source of tax.
With the money saved by legalizing drugs, it could be used to help monitor its use. Recreational drugs could be treated and handled much like other addictive and detrimental substances such as alcohol and tobacco. And like them, stiff penalties could be put into place for the improper use of recreational drugs; for example, if used by minors, or while operating a motor vehicle or if involved in a crime. Similarly the use of a recreational drug during employment could be grounds for dismissal and other severe penalties could be imposed for use of recreational drugs in any situation which endangers the health, safety or welfare of the general public. Even health insurance companies could charge considerably higher premiums or even deny coverage if the person is a drug user, and so forth. There are many ways to discourage the use of recreational drug; but making them illegal is just plain impractical and actually not in the best interest of society as a whole.
It has already been mentioned that legal recreational drugs would be an immediate new source of income to legitimate producers and retailers of the drugs while providing new sales tax revenue for the government. We know that most recreational drugs have harmful side effects. So at least with the legitimate growth and manufacturing of recreational drugs some degree of quality control and accountability could be established. In time, we may even be able to minimize the negative effects of recreational drugs. But at present, the production of recreational drugs are not regulated under the watchful eye of any government agency; and, are probably more harmful because of their lack of quality control then the drug itself. Think of the number of instances where a large number of drug users have become seriously ill or even died, not because of the drug, but because the drug was not manufactured correctly. Thus, legalizing drugs could actually be less harmful to the average citizen than having them illegal. The extra tax revenue earned through the sale of the recreational drugs could be used to help pay for research on the drugs, educating the public and the treatment of drug addiction itself. Thus, the legalized drug tax income could actually be used to work towards minimizing the use of recreational drugs.
Granted, the use of a recreational drug is not a wise choice for anyone. However, if an individual wants to use a recreational drug for their own personal use, and as long as it does not harm or endanger others (including their own family) and they are willing to pay the consequences of its use; they should have the legal right to do so. You cannot fix stupid. It is as inalienable right as much as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. You may not agree with what someone believes or how they act; but as long as it does not deny you or anyone else one of their inalienable rights then society not only has the obligation to permit it, it should actually encourage the freedom.
Interestingly, those who are most likely to be against the legalization of recreational drugs, are those who profit the most from it being illegal: that is, drug growers, smugglers and dealers. It is interesting to note that while there may be severe penalties for those who sell the illegal drugs – there are relatively minor penalties for those who use the illegal drugs. This is because that combination provides the maximum number of users and optimum profit for the drug dealers. You would think that it is the upstanding, law abiding, anti-drug proponent who is righteously trying to keep drugs illegal for the good of society; but, actually they are just mere pawns of the real proponents who want drugs kept illegal – the people who profit from it. Like many issues, when someone spends their effort, their time, and their money to support you on what you should think or what you should do because they say it is in your best interest – you can be darn sure that there is something in it for them. One may admire the intention of those citizens who are religiously fighting against legalizing recreational drugs – but frankly they are being duped. Step out of your vigilance for a moment and try and see the situation in a broader perspective. If your goal is really to minimize the negative effects and use of recreational drugs; then, ironically your best position if to permit their legalization.
Thus, it is argued that society, which obviously seems unable to adequately enforce laws against illegal drug use, would be better off legalizing recreational drugs and use its legalization to its advantage; a relatively simple solution to a complex problem.
Pro-Choice and Pro-Life
Few differences among people’s beliefs excite as much emotion as whether they are Pro-Life or whether they are Pro-Choice. Yet, a simple solution to this complex problem is attainable.
Technically life exists even before conception, but at conception a new human life has been created. To extinguish that human life is a crime against God and all things moral. Ideally, it would be wonderful to assure that all conceptions have the opportunity for birth and life. However, to compel a woman to carry and give birth to a child who is completely dependent upon her life for its life and especially for a woman who does not want that child; that too is also a crime against her not to mention a cruel and unusual punishment upon the unborn child.
Therefore, unless society is prepared to provide to that mother a suitable alternative for that unwanted and unborn child, such as proper pre-natal care, a guaranteed adoption for the child or at least a foster home or orphanage care after birth; then, society really has little right to decree to any woman what she can or cannot do with her unborn child which is solely dependent upon her life for its very existence.
Now once the child is born, that child does have all the rights of any living human being. Furthermore, once that child has obtained a level of development within the fetus such that if it was to be born even prematurely and it would have a reasonable chance of survival, that child also has all the rights of any living human being. Thus, late term abortions should be treated as if someone had killed the child after it was born. In time, advances in medicine will hopefully keep moving that period of high probability of survival for premature babies closer and closer to conception. One day, even, a child shortly after the moment of conception could medically be given a haven for development and thus afforded protection of its life. But until then, society cannot legally enforce a law against a woman with an unborn child from having an abortion if society is not prepared to offer to the mother a reasonable alternative.
In the situation where the child’s life or birth seriously threatens the mother’s life, this now becomes an issue of survival and self-defense. There are individuals who even under the threat of being harmed themselves still choose not to harm the other person. There are individuals who voluntarily sacrifice their life in order to ensure that someone else will live. Society generally holds these individuals in the highest esteem because they made the greatest of all sacrifices. However, no one should fault an individual for killing another in their own self-defense. And no one really knows how they will deal with this situation until they are actually placed in that situation. So no one has the right to legislate what should be done in these situations. An expected mother threatened by death because of pregnancy unfortunately at times is faced with this dilemma, and she and she alone should be allowed the responsibility of that decision, for she alone must bear the consequences of her decision.
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates, while diametrically opposed to each other based u
pon their own personal beliefs still must recognize that despite their personal beliefs and their compulsion to impress those beliefs upon others; they still do not have the right to impose their will (or even what they think is their God’s will) on another human being unless they are prepared to absorb the burden of imposing their will on that other person. This concept is similar to the parable of the women who under the law was supposed to be stoned to death for committing adultery. Jesus’ response to the accusers was then “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.” (John 8:7). So likewise, unto the Pro-Life group is prepared to demonstrate that they are willing to accept the responsibility for the other person’s unborn; they have no grounds to deny the right of the Pro-Choice person. Thus, the solution presented would actually be a hybrid of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice and hopefully a simple solution to a complex problem.
Nudity
God created us naked and beautiful; it was only man’s wickedness