 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
November 7, 2009
Legalization
One of my college students wrote an interesting paper arguing
for the legalization of performance-enhancing drugs.
His points were cogent and logical, his case quite sound, but he
failed to address one key point in the debate:
Drugs aren't dangerous because they are illegal: drugs are
illegal because they are dangerous.
Modern medicine has proven that many performance-enhancing
drugs cause long- and short-term side effects.
Worse yet, those who use performance-enhancing drugs like
steroids sometimes act out violently against others.
In other words, innocent people get harmed by users
attempting to "enhance" their performance.
The same holds true for recreational drugs.
Those who take recreational drugs risk harming themselves
and others...even in the case of marijuana.
The debate goes on about medical marijuana, and I posit this:
Pot might relieve pain, but what are the side-effects -- reduced
judgement? Harm against others, be it accidental or deliberate?
Is it worth legalizing a substance that impairs and intoxicates
those who might get into vehicles and drive, those who might
have violent impulses far more easily acted upon when
judgement is diminished?
I'm guessing that most who argue for the legalization of
medical marijuana (this seems to be where the debate rages)
have motives that go beyond their benevolent penchant for
AIDS victims and Glaucoma sufferers.
Shouldn't we be seeking a better class of pharmaceutical drugs
to cure or target and relieve symptoms of diseases?
(I'm no apologist for the pharmaceutical industry and I suffer
no love loss for American medicine as it stands. I write this
before any health-care bill has been passed, in the days when
corporate fascism in the form of privatized health insurance
still rules much of the health-care system, when private
insurance companies conduct a singular sort of "death panel" in
the form of a rubber stamp that say -- CLAIM DENIED.)
My second point is this and it is just as singular the first: why
resort to a weed loaded with myriad chemical as some sort of
cure-all?
This sounds like 19th Century Snake Oil to me.
Why resort to a weed, that when smoked, does incredible
damage to the lungs, does incredible damage to judgement.
When it comes to any drug, be it performance enhancing,
recreational, or even medical, my argument is this: if there are
societal or physical dangers, short term or long, why take the
risk?
Whenever I give this rant, somebody invariable asks: what
about alcohol, doesn't that cause harm, shouldn't that be illegal?
My short answer:
Yes, it probably should.
m.c. merrill
Legalization
One of my college students wrote an interesting paper arguing
for the legalization of performance-enhancing drugs.
His points were cogent and logical, his case quite sound, but he
failed to address one key point in the debate:
Drugs aren't dangerous because they are illegal: drugs are
illegal because they are dangerous.
Modern medicine has proven that many performance-enhancing
drugs cause long- and short-term side effects.
Worse yet, those who use performance-enhancing drugs like
steroids sometimes act out violently against others.
In other words, innocent people get harmed by users
attempting to "enhance" their performance.
The same holds true for recreational drugs.
Those who take recreational drugs risk harming themselves
and others...even in the case of marijuana.
The debate goes on about medical marijuana, and I posit this:
Pot might relieve pain, but what are the side-effects -- reduced
judgement? Harm against others, be it accidental or deliberate?
Is it worth legalizing a substance that impairs and intoxicates
those who might get into vehicles and drive, those who might
have violent impulses far more easily acted upon when
judgement is diminished?
I'm guessing that most who argue for the legalization of
medical marijuana (this seems to be where the debate rages)
have motives that go beyond their benevolent penchant for
AIDS victims and Glaucoma sufferers.
Shouldn't we be seeking a better class of pharmaceutical drugs
to cure or target and relieve symptoms of diseases?
(I'm no apologist for the pharmaceutical industry and I suffer
no love loss for American medicine as it stands. I write this
before any health-care bill has been passed, in the days when
corporate fascism in the form of privatized health insurance
still rules much of the health-care system, when private
insurance companies conduct a singular sort of "death panel" in
the form of a rubber stamp that say -- CLAIM DENIED.)
My second point is this and it is just as singular the first: why
resort to a weed loaded with myriad chemical as some sort of
cure-all?
This sounds like 19th Century Snake Oil to me.
Why resort to a weed, that when smoked, does incredible
damage to the lungs, does incredible damage to judgement.
When it comes to any drug, be it performance enhancing,
recreational, or even medical, my argument is this: if there are
societal or physical dangers, short term or long, why take the
risk?
Whenever I give this rant, somebody invariable asks: what
about alcohol, doesn't that cause harm, shouldn't that be illegal?
My short answer:
Yes, it probably should.
m.c. merrill
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
