There’s absolutely not any doubt that a chemical problem may be the worst thing in someone’s life. It may create a lifestyle that’s physically and emotionally unhealthy. Someone who’s hooked on drugs has the following problem: by pursuing their needs, their needs, their cravings and urges, by listening to their demands, they neglect themselves.
By feeding their indulgences, people who have a chemical addiction simply worsen their particular condition. Some drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, are addictive enough that they excite theft and other morally reprehensible acts, but there are just as many instances where such chemicals induce people to have jobs that they hate to supply their desire. In any case, the person begins sacrificing their soul merely to enjoy their high.
Rather than being a multi-colored palette of experiences, life becomes an endless race to keep a state of uninterrupted and complete intoxication. Some people can be hooked while maintaining an ethical and cultured existence. Others suffering from substance addiction, however, have only one meaning to their lives. Since I’ve written a wonderful deal on drugs and their positive effects on humanity, it’s only fair that I provide my view on addiction. It seems to be the principal reason for the present prohibition of intoxicants.
If I were not to deal with the question of chemical addiction, it simply wouldn’t be fair for my opponents in the drug debate. Their argument is as follows: drug dependence has generated so much pain and distress, our only recourse as intelligent and responsible citizens is to prohibit all materials that inebriate the consumer. The American legal system, as it stands now, is the best persecutor of the drug user.
In its efforts to smother the drug epidemic, the government wages its war on drugs. The prevailing attitude among the ruling class is that anything has to be done to stop this menace to society. Despite the fact that I agree with my opponents that drug addiction is real, it infects a sizable part of society, and it is harmful, I disagree with their methods on solving this issue. If someone finds that a close, loved one is addicted to drugs, the last thing they would ever do is call the police to detain that person.
Drug addicts suffer with a personal problem, not much different than those addicted to gambling or people with anger control, or people who can’t stop smoking cigarettes. Today, the state is arresting people for having these personal issues. The government is placing them in a population of rapists and murderers, with the absurd notion that once they rejoin society, they’ll be”rehabilitated.”
To cure those who suffer from alcoholism, there are support groups, psychological therapy, and a wealth of highly trained employees. Those are the methods that we encourage in regards to helping those with any personal issue. It’s only by addressing the problem and treating it straight that we can actually attain a solution to our own emotional difficulties. Knowing this, it’s our responsibility as a society to promote this way of treating drug addiction.
But, our nation is a coercive state — it rules by force and power, which ultimately translate into violence. The duly elected members of our institution feel a joy to swing their hammer. If it’s a brilliant idea to imprison people who suffer with addiction, then why not we impose the exact sentences on those who smoke cigarettes, or individuals who inadvertently slip on their diet program? Why not bring back alcohol prohibition? I’m positive that those police officers that raid medical marijuana growers would certainly love to engage on a raid on Alcoholics Anonymous.
When a individual’s addiction medication causes them to lose control of the majority of the life, the best thing they could do for themselves is to stop using drugs. The absolute worst thing that could happen to them would be imprisonment. Conservatives still support the “power equals force” theory. The country has an army of police officers to subdue the population.
By threatening this sort of punishment on the people, people can be coerced into abstaining from drugs, finally immunizing them from dependence and its horrible consequences on health. Animals are trained in precisely the exact same manner, by a system of rewards and punishments, to promote or discourage certain behavior. This is not something new: the established order seeking social control by treating the people like sheep.
The simple fact is that human beings aren’t easy enough to be coerced by threats or controlled by rewards. This sort of coercive authority generates the perfect citizens of the Third Reich: people that are prepared to turn their leader’s dreams into a reality, regardless of what their particular personal or societal price. A psychological issue simply can’t be threatened away. If we genuinely want to rehabilitate individuals, to make them confident and a value to other people emotionally, then we surely can not go about it with risks. If it was that easy, we could only threaten away alcoholism.
The new message of the judgment order could be this: to be able to heal people of alcoholism, we’re incarcerating all individuals that are proven guilty of using alcohol. By imprisoning those innocent, ill people, are we rehabilitating them? Psychotherapy is an important part of rehabilitation. Counseling and therapy can change a person; it helps them discover the origin of the problems, it may help them eliminate that source. It’s no different when it comes to drug addiction.
In the end, psychologists who treat those with drug addiction also deal with those that are alcohol dependent — and this could make sense, because alcohol is also a drug. If the government isn’t imprisoning alcoholics, chronic gamblers, overeaters, smokers, homosexuals, and offbeat artists, then it will become a living contradiction when it imprisons drug addicts. The system keeps an unfair standard for society. It attempts to punish those people who use chemicals to tap into the unconscious parts of our thoughts. It’s a personal action, something which has no direct impact on people around the user.
To outlaw it’s equivalent to banning any sort of benign taste, whether it’s religion, hobbies, diet, or livelihood. There are particular cultures where one’s livelihood is set by their parent’s profession, while opium remains the most popular medication. People born on different areas of the planet aren’t that much different than every other. Whether it is a ban on drug’s, or a specific religion, or a kind of artwork, the issue is the same: a government that’s overstepping its bounds in”protecting its citizens.” And, just like in every other instance of a government committing unjust acts, to change the circumstance, we have to break the law.
We are offenders like Martin Luther King, but I think can evolve. Until we could arrange a one-million man smoke-in on the lawn of the Whitehouse, I do not suggest any individual to use drugs publicly where they may be arrested. No one with any sense is in favor of arresting individuals addicted to drugs. But, few individuals are prepared to accept the notion of”legalizing drugs.” The theory behind legalization (or “decriminalization”), however, is just that: individuals that are caught with small amounts of any controlled substance won’t be prosecuted, nor will be that they interrogated or harassed by law enforcement.
While there’s a whole lot of familiarity with those addicted to drugs, there’s little sympathy for people who distribute these substances. The drug dealer is looked at as the guy who sells toxin to the children of the community. Much of the antipathy towards chemical vendors is undeserved.
Marijuana and psychedelic drug vendors, by way of instance, maintain a high code of ethics, something which even the DEA has confessed. Heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine dealers, similar to their customers, are less feeling and considerate. What a lot of people don’t understand is that most traders are individuals themselves who have customs — they do the one thing they know how to survive. Again, the drug dealer exactly like the drug addict is only a pawn in a much bigger social game. If poverty weren’t so rampant, if Capitalism left the ghettos untouched, then maybe these kinds of tragedies would not have to be endured.