Is there a more efficient and ethical way to reduce drug abuse in the US than by conducting a war on drugs?

Yes

7 of 7

by George Gregory

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Yes, but legalization is not the answer.

Let us examine the two approaches and their logical consequences.

One side of the debate rightly recognizes drug abuse for what it is: an enemy that preys on society, destroying all it touches. Their response is to mount a literal "war" on drugs, driving up the cost of doing business for its purveyors through crackdowns and a police/military response. This merely promotes the establishment of organized crime the same way the Prohibition Act gave rise to notorious gangsters like Al Capone. Let us be frank: as long as a market exists for these products, they WILL find a way to the end-users.

The other side of the debate suggests the practical expedient of legalization. Rather, they say, than putting the profits in the hands of organized crime, we should let the government legalize the product and then tax it much the way the cigarettes and liquor are: the so called "sin" taxes. But if the "War On Drugs" is an uphill battle, legalization is seen by many as tacit approval of a behavior that has been shown to be destructive in the extreme. Is this morally acceptable? Should a government be an active party to the destruction of a subset of the society it is supposed to protect?

These are tough questions.

The roots of the problem, I think, are several. First we have a society - arguably the richest, most secure society in history - that elevates the "pursuit of happiness" as the greatest good. We go into debt, we work two jobs; both parents are forced to work to afford nicer toys and bigger houses. Our lives have become so frenetic, so full of activity that we lose much of the personal contact so essential to the happy development of our children. They lose an important part of their own childhood in the process.

Secondly, we have debunked the concept of real morality. Though a large portion still have enough sense to imagine such a concept, we are told it is "judgemental" to impose our morality on other people. The separation of Church and State (which, by the way was the idea of the Churches, not the government of the day) is taken to the extreme of legislating moral positions out of existence, and certainly out of fashion. We have cast subsequent generations adrift, less sure of real right and real wrong. Values are seen as relative to the individual.

We were told decades ago, "If it feels good, do it". We have largely taken that route, and now reap the whirlwind.

Is it any wonder that our children should experiment with drugs? And having experimented, some will become addicts, falling off society's radar screens, and creating tremendous collateral damage amongst those who care for them, both emotionally and financially. Some will enter the sex trade to feed their habits; others to petty crime, driving up insurance rates literally taking bread off their tables.

There is an answer, or at least a part of one, and it lies a few steps earlier in the process. I'd put my money on values based programs designed to strengthen families, teach communication and parenting skills, and to encourage personal responsibility: and these while the potential end-users of the drugs are young and not yet addicted.

And part of the answer lies within each of us. We have to teach our children, and demonstrate in our own lives, real values, a tangible morality that is defined and present. It will not be government that fixes this problem; it will be fixed when we all, as individuals, take responsibility for our actions. All the government can do is to remove as many obstacles as possible in that process.

Learn more about this author, George Gregory.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.