End the War on Drugs

Ok, so this is kind of a broad subject, but let me see if I can keep my point self-evident. Drugs is one of those tricky subjects that people always seem to have an opinion on, but I am sick and tired of hearing people, who obviously don't know half as much about history as they claim, insisting that our forefathers (e.g. George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson) would support the war on drugs that the US is currently waging. The reality is that since most of them WERE drug users of one type of another (mostly marijuana and tobacco, though there is plenty of evidence for occasional use of more hard-core drugs such as cocaine and opium, both of which were commonly used in medical practices at the time), they would be most likely to, at most, support laws on regulating manufacture so that it would be safer.

In my opinion, it is past time to abandon the war on drugs. It is costing a fortune that our country should be using for other things such as improving our infrastructure and reducing the national debt. By continuing the war we are not only wasting money, but we also encourage the drug cartels to continue the way that they have by making the whole thing more profitable, since they are able to charge more for it because it's illegal. This ability to charge more not only increases the income of the drug traffickers, but also encourages others to get involved in order to get a share of the profits.

There is a lot of talk right now in the Americas as a whole about fighting the drug cartels. Mexico, and many south and central American countries are trying to band together to fight the drug lords and their hordes and yet almost all of them freely admit that due to the resources that the drug cartels have at their disposal and the continued income they receive from sales (mostly from the US of course) the governments are fighting a losing battle. Continuing to fight the War on Drugs is only fueling the fire.

My proposal is simple: decriminalize and regulate. If the US was to decriminalize and regulate drugs such as cocaine, opium, meth, and weed, it would be first become much safer to manufacture and consume. Then you would start to see more domestic production, which would reduce dependence on foreign product, increase availability for sale here and bring down prices something fierce. This would in turn cause foreign drug cartels to lose money and power allowing the governments to again regain the upper hand in their countries.

Now this of course is where all the "oh, my gods! Please think of the children!" idiots start up. The same attitude driving these people also ran the movement that outlawed alcohol in prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. When will you learn that outlawing stuff like this only causes more problems, not less. You aren't saving the children- you are encouraging them by making drugs more attractive due to natural human rebellious tendencies and endangering them even more by making acquiring and using drugs more dangerous than it has to be. Take your own advice- THINK OF THE CHILDREN THAT YOU ARE KILLING!  

The "Rights" of Big Business

So I was watching a news podcast on the web yesterday and it got me thinking:: Why have we allowed businesses in the USA to think that they have the same rights as individuals?

Let me back track a step. The report I was watching was regarding the 4 tobacco companies that are suing the government over the warning labels that have been imposed on their products.

First off, I am one of those individuals that believes that cigarettes and other tobacco products, which have been proven to cause/exacerbate a variety of illnesses including, but not limited to lung cancer, really should be counting their lucky stars that they have not been outlawed altogether for all of the extra chemicals and toxic crap that they routinely add to a nearly harmless plant in order to make it more addictive... and more deadly. I really have a hard time understanding why the government and other society leaders still try to insist that Marijuana, another plant that is popularly rolled into tubes of paper and smoked (and with a lot less dangerous side-effects) is somehow infinitely more evil than this industry giant that has more than out lived any usefulness it once had.

Secondly, I have an issue with warning label regulation. Any company that is not being led by idiots will impose such things on themselves in order to protect the company from lawsuits from users who choose to use their product and then regret doing so- if the government has to step in and insist on it then the company was doomed to failure and bankruptcy to begin with. Of course, the government's involvement is meant to protect it's citizens from falling victim to dangerous products, but honestly, I don't know why they bother- most people don't bother to read those warnings anyway and most of the ones who do either wouldn't use the product to begin with, or are looking for material for their stand-up comedy act.

That being said, what truly upset me about this lawsuit was the insistence in the wording that the companies themselves had a right to free speech that was being impinged upon. Anyone one who has read the Constitution of the US and it's bill of rights should be able to tell you that they refer to INDIVIDUALS not businesses, churches or other organizations. Basically what this means is that if the owners of these companies hold a press conference and claim that their product is actually good for you, their is really nothing that anyone can do about it, but if the government determines that the products they produce are harmful (which, of course, they have... repeatedly) then the government is required by it's mandate from it's citizens to impose a warning label on the product itself warning users of the dangers of use and the company can't do anything about it. That is what the law says.

However, there is precedent for their claim- as annoying as it may be to me- thanks to the ruling some years back that campaign contributions, both from an individual AND from a company, was protected free speech. I still don't understand why anyone would hide behind a company name while making a campaign contribution anyway, but personally, finding out that any candidate for an elected position accepted contributions from a large company generally translates in my mind to they don't need my vote.