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?