War on Drugs Part II: The Costs of Being Denied the Right to Pursue Chemical Happiness

The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) of 1970 renewed the drug ban reasoning and has been surprisingly embraced by many Americans. Too bad this law, which was passed by Congress, goes against the Constitution. But that’s okay, nobody has seemed to notice.

The Constitution did not give the national government the power to regulate drugs, which is why an amendment was necessary to ban alcohol in 1920 (which by the way was unsuccessful, as many people know. Alcohol use and crime is cited as increasing during prohibition. This is much the way drug use and crime have increased since the outlawing of drugs. Just an observation). So if an amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, it is needed to prohibit drugs. But that is avoided now that the CSA is in effect. The government can now decide for the people whether or not they have the right to pursue chemical happiness. And the right has been repeatedly denied.

It should be a person’s right to decide whether or not he uses any kind of drug for medicinal or recreational purposes. The government doesn’t prohibit bacon because of its potential to clogs arteries. Maybe that will be next; we will lose our right to pursue nutritional happiness.

The CSA classifies drugs into different categories called schedules. Schedule I drugs are completely banned, including a ban on research. Schedule I drugs are considered to be highly addictive and have no medicinal value. Somehow marijuana and LSD ended up categorized as Schedule I drugs. I’m fairly certain I learned in health class that both of these drugs are not physically addictive, and I know that pot has the medicinal purpose of increasing appetite in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. But these drugs remain classified as Schedule I. Once a drug is considered schedule I by government committees, there is no need for a constitutional amendment for a ban thanks to the CSA. (Gotta love loopholes that get government out of upholding our constitutional rights.) This happened to LSD, marijuana and ecstasy despite the drugs’ medical uses and lack of addictive qualities.

Ecstasy was used in the 1970s by psychiatrists and considered the “love drug” because of its power to help people cope with intimacy problems. California psychiatrists used the drug in group marriage therapy and were quoted as saying that it accomplished, in six hours, results that would normally take a year or more of expensive therapy.

When ecstasy was still legal, it was also used at “love parties” and raves. There were very few deaths resulting from conditions such as dehydration during ecstasy use, but the deaths were highly publicized and led to a ban of the drug that literally took place overnight. Ecstasy is now a Schedule I drug despite the fact that it is not addictive and can be used successfully in therapy.

Now for LSD. Ok, I can’t think of a medical purpose for the drug, but it has not been well researched due to its Schedule I status. Perhaps there are great things that could be accomplished with this drug. Many would argue that we already know it does great things. Acid may not cure disease, but many people argue that it is mind-expanding and could change the way people think for the better if everyone would use it. I know it sounds a little far out, but we’ll never know now that it’s been banned. LSD is not addictive and when used in moderation and without being laced with anything dangerous, is safe. There is a risk of harming brain neurons if LSD is overused, but that risk should be weighed by consumers, not the government.

The risks weighed by people today regarding LSD are much different than they would be if it were not illegal. On the black market acid often gets laced with other dangerous drugs or poisons or the dosages can be dangerously high. If the drugs were legal and regulated the way other drugs are, these risks wouldn’t exist. If a person wants to expand his mind by dropping acid, he should be able to without the risks associated with it today thanks to the government ban. It also kills me to think that an 18-year-old kid could actually go to jail for possessing LSD. LSD users aren’t typically dangerous criminals that need to be off the street and in jail; they usually just want to use it recreationally or to expand their minds.

The amount of jail space devoted to drug offenders is ridiculous. The US already has a high percentage of its population in prison compared with other developed countries. About 55% of jailed persons are drug offenders. If we keep this up, there won’t be any room for the murderers and rapists! They need to be off the streets more so than a college-aged pot smoker does.

Money is another issue brought about by jailing drug offenders. Each year it is estimated that between thirty to forty million people use illegal drugs. If police caught all of these people and sent them to jail the US would need prisons with the capacity to hold the combined populations of California, Arizona and New Mexico. To imprison these drug offenders for five years it would cost 10-15 trillion dollars. That is about 10 times the annual federal budget. Not only would the country lose money by spending it on prison upkeep, but it would also lose all of the tax-payers’ dollars of those who were imprisoned. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that imprisoning people for doing drugs is a little unrealistic in addition to being unfair and stripping of constitutional rights.

America, you’re being taken advantage of by more than Bush’s “War on Terror” propaganda. Nixon’s “War on Drugs” is still brainwashing us after almost four decades. Just be aware of the distorted information the government feeds you. Keep your eyes and your minds open. Acid anyone?

War on Drugs Part I: The Outageous History

The term "War on Drugs", coined by President Nixon in the 1970s, has stuck with us and somehow invokes positive connotations for many people. People have become victims of the propaganda that leads the public to believe that drugs are the root of all evil in today's society, and if we could just get rid of drugs, crime would decrease tremendously. I'm hoping to convince people that this is a bunch of crap.

First of all, most of the violent drug crimes committed today are committed because of the prohibition of drugs, not because of the existence of drugs. The black market for illegal drugs is huge, and violence results from drug deals gone wrong etc. This is because there is no government regulation, only prohibition and incarceration for offenses. If narcotics were sold in stores, there would be no need to meet a dealer in a back alley.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. So here is some interesting history. I found some fascinating information on the website druglibrary.org about the origins of anti-drug laws. It turns out that most of the reasoning behind prohibiting drugs were based on ridiculous claims that one could never get away with today. For example, the first measure to ban opium occurred in San Francisco in 1875. The reasoning behind the ban? Chinese men use opium to seduce white women, therefore it should be illegal. This first ordinance banning opiates was passed around the time some other discriminatory laws against Chinese people were passed, such as the law prohibiting the pigtails hairstyle. This passed because some Chinese men wore their hair in pigtails. During the period that opiates and pigtails were outlawed in San Francisco and other states, there was no evidence of drug related crime. I'm almost certain that the measure against wearing pigtails has since been revoked, so maybe opiates will become legal again. If only.

Prejudice against Chinese men wasn’t the only prejudice that fueled the prohibition of drugs. In 1914 Utah made marijuana illegal in a series of laws aimed to discriminate against Mormons. Mormons who had moved to Mexico to escape anti-polygamy laws returned with a new habit: pot. The government banned pot in an effort to piss off Mormons. Sounds legit to me.

Then there was the broadened banning of marijuana by 30 states by 1930. The main reasoning for the ban in southwestern states was that pot made the Spanish-speaking people crazy. Latinos were unintelligent to begin with, according to some politicians, and adding marijuana to the mix just makes them plain crazy, so it should be outlawed.

I think the validity of some of these bannings should be reevaluated due to the reasoning used to pass them. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me who thinks banning pigtails and opiates in response to hatred for Chinese men is kind of out there.

Ordinance passed in Bangor, Maine gives children a voice

The Bangor, Maine City Council approved an ordinance Monday to prohibit people from smoking in motor vehicles while children are present.

My first reaction to this measure was disapproval. I'm not a fan of the government intervening more than it already does in citizen's lives and this issue seemed to be overstepping boundaries. After some thought however, I realized that this really is a health risk, and maybe the measure does have some validity.

Second hand smoke is something that many kids deal with every day. As awful as it is when children are forced to breathe it in their homes, at least most houses are big enough that children can escape the worst of the smoke by leaving the room or by not sitting directly next to a smoking parent. There is no such escape when riding in a confined space such as a car.

I can remember being exposed to smoke during long car rides when I was younger, and I also remember the discomfort I felt as a result. Sometimes I rode in a car while three of the passengers were smoking. During the winter the windows were often kept mostly closed, except for an inch or two, because of the cold weather. In addition to the immediate discomforts such as difficulty breathing and coughing, by the end of the car rides I remember dealing with eyes that burned and itched for hours and clothes and hair that smelled like tobacco. I'm lucky because I don't suffer long term damage from the exposure, such as asthma, but many children do suffer such medical problems as a result of being exposed to second hand smoke.

Something like this should be a law because children have no other defenses. Kids know it is uncomfortable to deal with cigarette smoke in cars, but many do not know how much it could be physically harming them. Very young children can't even talk to say they are uncomfortable, and even if they could, many parents would not change their behaviors. The law is the only way to defend children from harm in this case. Hopefully it will make parents less likely to expose their children to smoke in the small spaces of cars.

If parents know it is illegal to smoke in the car while a child is present, maybe they will be more likely to pull over and take a cigarette break outside. I understand how addictive cigarettes are, but that does not justify exposing kids to the toxic chemicals in small spaces. Opponents argue that this is just a way for nonsmokers to "moralize" against smokers. I think it's simply a way to help protect children from the dangers of secon hand smoke in confined spaces.

Feminism shouldn't be a dirty word

American girls and women living in today's society enjoy so many advantages compared to women 100 years ago. We can vote, own property and hold the same jobs as men. As grateful as I am for these accomplishments, I refuse to consider the feminist movement over and worth only a few paragraphs in history textbooks. We still have a long way to go, girls.

The need for a feminist movement isn't over, it has just changed. Feminism is defined as a movement to gain equal legal, political, social and cultural rights for women. Women gained equal legal rights, but stereotypes and double standards live on. Now, more than ever, is when feminism needs support. Struggling to gain equal legal rights was not easy, but at least there were clear goals that could be accomplished, such as gaining support to pass equal right laws. Now that we have all the laws, it's harder to set and accomplish measurable goals. Congress can't pass a law forcing men to stop treating women as sex objects. What is needed is people dedicated to spreading awareness about the need for social change regarding the way women are portrayed and treated.

The problem is that most of today's young women are far from being proud feminists. They consider the struggle for gender equality to be over and don't want to be grouped with a bunch of radical, hairy, homosexual, bra-burning, bitchy, man-hating feminists. The fact that women who believe in equal rights are stereotyped so negatively is reason enough to consider a need for more support of feminism.

Many people are not aware that discrimination still takes place. Women are still facing some of the same types of discrimination that they were 30 years ago. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that in 1979, women working full time earned 63% as much as men. In 2002 women working full time earned 80% as much as men. This is progress, but we're obviously still not where we should be, and most people don't even know that the unfairness still exists.

Here is my view of what today's feminist movement should be like. It is more based on fighting for social equality and to end stereotypes and double standards than it is about fighting for legal rights. Today's feminists have more in common with, and can join forces with, other minorities. Blacks technically have equal rights just like women do, but they are also still discriminated against. Today's feminist should be concerned with equality for all people. Women need to demand to be treated equally and to be as open with their sexuality as men are. I will be very happy the day when women aren't considered sluts for having casual sex while men are high-fived for the same behavior. People need to understand that women and men are different, so are naturally going to be treated somewhat differently. The gap just needs to be narrowed. People need to be educated about the biological and psychological differences between men and women, and learn to respect each other for the differences.

I don't want to hear someone else say, "Well you feminists can't have it both ways. You want to be equal but you get mad if men don't hold doors open for you or pay for your dinner." I won't lie and tell you that I don't enjoy when men are chivalrous, but it doesn't mean that I require it. I'm fine with opening my own doors and I often pay for my own dinner, but I am also psychologically different from a man. Women do like to be treated well. It doesn't mean we deserve to be treated as the weaker sex.

Just stop using the word "feminist" like it's such a bad thing. The movement isn't over, it has just changed. Feminists have changed. They don't bite, I swear. At least not most of them.

Do kids even go to libraries?

A Missouri library is being pressured by community members to ban two graphic novels that have "pornogrpahic images" in them.

I'm not really up to date on what's popular in libraries at the moment, but apparently comic book-like, illustrated, graphic novels are all the rage right now. Some community members in central Missouri are upset because two of the graphic novels in a library depict naked people in their drawings. However, these books don't throw in drawings of naked people and sex just for the hell of it. The drawings are in the contexts of semiautobiograpgical accounts of the authors' difficult childhoods, including strict religious upbringings and homosexuality.

If you ask me this is literature, not porn. (Actually, if you ask me, it wouldn't matter if it was porn. But that's for another entry.)

The opponents of having the books available at the library say that the cartoon-like drawings will attract young readers who shouldn't be exposed to nudity and sex. (Would they rather their children see a dictator being hanged on youtube?)

I don't understand why American culture still clings to hang-ups about the human body and sexuality. The Puritans have been dead for a while, so get over it already! Sheltering children from a drawing of a naked couple will not protect them from evil, it will just reaffirm the ridiculous idea that sex is a bad thing. Living in a culture that airs The Terminator on television at three in the afternoon, but limits edited versions of Sex and the City to later at night after a disclaimer makes me wonder if we have our values in order. It bothers me that we allow our children to witness violence, but we can't let them see something as natural as nudity or sex. So many people are fine with allowing children to see images of guns, but how about seeing guns that shoots life instead of death? Penises are not evil. We don't need to hide them.

Children enter their teen years harboring enough feelings of self-counsciousness about their bodies. Adding extra hang-ups about the human body does not help matters. The pictures in the books aren't even photographs of real people; they're just drawings. If kids can see diagrams in textbooks of naked people it doesn't make sense to ban images that are a part of valid literature.

These people need something else to get fired up about. Censoring books is such a waste of time. Sheltering people from "bad" things won't keep them away. Hopefully those kids will grow up and be naked sometimes, and maybe even have sex if they're feeling extra sinful. Exposing it to them through drawings in books won't corrupt them. They're most likely all doomed to
become sexual beings at some point anyway. Oh well, I guess people will keep reproducing, and the human race will have to continue.