A drug-free world for future generations in the Sri Lanka Sunday Observer
Drug-related social issues have become a topic of discussion not only in media, but also among individuals in various social strata. The Mathata Thitha concept of President Mahinda Rajapaksa was formulated for eradicating the drug menace from our motherland.
Fortunately, we don’t see this term much any more. The U.S. 1986 crime bill said that we’d be drug-free by 1995. Newt Gingrich then said we’d be drug-free by 2001. And the U.N. was ultimately embarrassed by its bold claim that the world would be drug-free by 2008.
Even organizations like Partnership for a Drug Free America and the Drug Free America Foundation seem to just be keep their obsolete names without really believing that such a thing is possible.
It’s a laughable concept. Drug-free? What do you mean? Aspirin is a drug. Caffeine is a drug. Medical science uses drugs like they’re water (I believe my dad takes 16 pills a day, required by his doctors). Your body manufactures drugs.
In an attempt to understand the morons who use the “drug-free” term, well, maybe they mean that “drug-free” is shorthand. Maybe it really is supposed to stand for the more awkward “free of currently-illicit drugs.” OK, let’s examine that. People have been using currently illicit drugs for millennia and will continue do so as clearly evidenced by the absolute failure of any prohibition scheme to put a dent in use.
But wait! I have a solution. I can give you your drug-free world (if it means “free of currently-illicit drugs”) in one easy step. Legalize. Voila! No more currently-illicit drugs being used.
2. Blood cocaine
AUSTRALIANS who use cocaine have the blood of those slain in the Mexican drug wars on their hands, according to the head of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).
ACC chief executive John Lawler says cocaine is freely available on Australian streets and police are making record levels of arrests.
But he says those using the “blood cocaine” were indirectly supporting the drug cartels responsible for slaying tens of thousands of Mexicans.
The Mexican government estimates about 35,000 police officers, gang members and bystanders have died since 2006 in the nation’s battle to eradicate the drug cartels.
This type of ridiculous claim has been made many times before â€” think ONDCP Superbowl ads after 9/11, where they tried to tie drug-use with terrorism.
Yes, if you eliminated all drug use, you would wipe out the cartels’ profits. And if you eliminated all sex, you would wipe out STD’s. Neither concept can exist in the real world.
The truth is, John Lawler is trying to deflect the fact that he and the rest of the drug war apparatus is what’s responsible for the destruction in Mexico.
If cocaine was regulated, this wouldn’t happen.
This isn’t even a tough choice situation. When it comes to produce, some people buy “organic,” while a lot of people aren’t interested in going that route or paying a few extra pennies and so buy non-organically produced produce. A few people support environmental efforts by purchasing toilet paper made from recycled paper, while many others really want their Charmin.
When it comes to currently illicit drugs, if a legal option was available that wasn’t priced completely out of reach, people would overwhelmingly choose the legal option, cutting off the money supply to the criminals.
John Lawler tries further to justify his deflection…
“I’d like to pose to (cocaine users) the question, if it were an egg they were consuming that had been grown in a battery environment, would they consume it?” Mr Lawler asked.
Perhaps an Australian can clue us in to what Lawler means by “battery environment.” It’s not a term familiar to me, but I can guess that it means some kind of illicit situation perhaps related to violence (and not electrical storage containers).
Well you can bet your sweet ass that if eggs were illegal, Australians would be consuming them, regardless of where they were “grown.” They would be as indiscriminate as goannas seeking out those succulent chicken embryos for breakfast. And they would then rub their bellies in satisfaction with a clear conscience while fully and rightly blaming the government for the tragic and unnecessary “battery environment” its stupid laws were fueling.