WHEN EDUCATORS and legislators teach and talk in moral absolutes, they've ceased to be educators and legislators. Instead they're brain-washers and misguided people with a lot of power.
The reference is to the War on Drugs, fought in the classroom and fought even at the University. Some effects are clear, such as the 1991 Operation Equinox that busted several fraternities for drug use, and the most recent bust in early November with the arrest of three University and six former University students.
My goal is not to prove that the War on Drugs is silly, that's a non-sequitor. Setting this aside, drug use is not wrong, and furthermore for some people the additional gains may exceed the extra costs. In short, for some people, it's worth it. To show this, we'll need to debunk a few incorrect thoughts some drug war apologists hold regarding drug use and the drug war.
Myth #1: Drug use has no benefits. This makes no sense at all. If drug use had no benefits, then why do so many people try to recreationally use drugs? Are these people just gluttons for punishment? Are they the same people who, for the fun of it, like to smack their heads up against stone walls or drive nails into their toes or eat horse manure (other activities for which there are presumably no benefits)?
The typical apologist confronted with this obvious point then tries to confuse the issue. He cites all the bad things that could happen to you - sickness, loss of judgment, even the chance of death, which we all assume every time we drive on the road. But this is what makes such an apologist dead wrong. Yes, this is true, but these are some of the costs of using drugs. The fact that they exist does not erase the benefit side of the ledger.
|
The plain truth is that there are benefits. In fact, they are so beneficial, they're often referred to sentimentally as "highs." There are benefits to drug use, plain and simple.
Myth #2: It's just not worth it. Just say "no." All the costs that are incurred just don't add up. Loss of judgment is one that is often cited. But, hey, this very cost is for many the benefit sought - a high, a loss of judgment and one's rational faculties.
What about sickness? Sure, you could get sick. But you always could have gotten sick playing in the snow as a child. If you didn't go play, because you were afraid of getting sick, I suspect you had a pretty empty childhood. The point is, accepting sickness is a cost that is often easily outweighed by the benefits of the activity - be it making a snowman or getting high.
As already mentioned, we all accept the chance of death every day for silly reasons. If you drive faster to get to work, change the radio while driving or cross the street while a car may be coming, you are increasing your chance of death for a very small convenience. Surely, then, doing drugs may be worth the added risk of death for some people, especially if the benefits are highs as opposed to a two minute early arrival.
Those who feed us this myth assume that everyone's preferences are the same as their own. If, for them, the benefits do not exceed the cost, and if it is so much the case that they spout lines like "Just say no," they are forgetting that not everyone has the same decision-making process. Getting high just isn't my thing, but if it is for others, they have just as much a claim to the truth as I do. As the Latin phrase goes, de gustibus non est disputandum - tastes are not debatable.
Myth #3: Drug use is morally wrong. This tends to stem from myths #1 and #2, holding that drug use is never worth it, therefore always wrong. Even if, in the fantasy world of these apologists, myths #1 and #2 were true, you still couldn't make this logical jump. But they do. Then they brainwash children in elementary school. And when kids know that they're being lied to, it's no big surprise these programs are extremely ineffective.
At any rate, the coy moral objection often runs like this: Drug use can hurt others, and by the harms principle, that's wrong. (Hopefully, nobody is idotic enough to call an act of drug consumption that doesn't hurt anyone, something entirely self-regarding, immoral.) But this objection is to drug abuse, not to drug use. This same objection applies to not staying up too many hours of the day, lest you recklessly get on the road and hurt someone. Nobody is saying drug abuse is good, but drug use isn't wrong.
Myth #4: Drug use leads to drug abuse. In the classrooms I have been in, no one has ever presented on this issue, just the assertion that some drugs are gateways to other drugs. Good job, team apologists, way to be intellectually honest.
People develop addictions. To food, to exercise, to you name it. These aren't unique to drugs. So to claim that people move from marijuana to cocaine as evidence of gateway drugs is about as honest as claiming that eating leads to overeating - for some it does, but not for everyone.
Let me clarify. This is not an invitation to go out and be really irresponsible. But it is an invitation for drug warmongers to rethink their arguments.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at jeisenberg@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 21 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
