The War on Drugs

I read recently an article by Conrad Black wherein he argues that the war on drugs is a failure. This argument is not new, but I was surprised to read it in a conservative media source. It brought to mind the words of Austin Farrer, "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned." (Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.), which lead me to ponder on the argument against the legalization of drugs such as marijuana.

In Mr. Black's article, he stops short of arguing that cannabis should be legalized, but gives a number of statistics that suggest that prohibiting it has been an expensive failure. The only downsides he points out fall into half a paragraph where he also dismisses the argument (using statistics) that cannabis use is a gateway drug. Even the negative effects he attributes to cannabis he characterizes as, "less damaging and dangerous to society than alcohol or tobacco."

Among the cannabis characteristics Mr. Black considers "less damaging" is "psychological problems." I find "less damaging" as strange a euphemism as referring to drug use as "recreational". Various medical reports link cannabis use to depression, impotence and other problems. In a time of worldwide financial trouble, not only are we left with the medical bills for these problems, but our society loses out on these individuals' capabilities to create, to better, and to participate.

To argue that cannabis is less damaging than alcohol or tobacco is to effectively make alcohol and tobacco the gateway drugs to cannabis. The former are allowed, goes the reasoning, therefore they should all be allowed; we're already there, and this isn't any worse. And down we go on the slippery slope.

Life and Death

There are some in the world who claim that it is inconsistent to be "pro-life" while also being in favor of the death penalty for crimes such as premeditated murder. The reality is that this argument is specious. It erroneously attempts to find a contradiction where none exists.

It's really this simple: it's the difference between punishing you for your own bad choices and punishing you for someone else's.

The ironic reality is that the only contradiction is in opposing accountability for one's own actions while legalizing and supporting the death of the truly innocent. It is an argument as old as time: In ancient times, slaves were considered "property" and could be treated as inhumanely as their owners saw fit. So too the modern equivalent that innocent embryos are somehow not "life" but only little more than property. The results are awful and terrifying. Such behavior reminds me that whenever people can be persuaded to do evil and to call good evil that "the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice".