On legalisation

Luckily, not all newspapers push easy orthodoxies. I suppose one should expect the Economist to be somewhat libertarian, but its stand on drug legalisation is principled and well argued. The antis only have hysteria and scares to oppose to this, because it simply isn't rational to criminalise drugs (and wouldn't be, even if every lie New Labour tells about them were true).

I'm now going to make a strong statement, which I believe to be correct although I couldn't prove it (and what evidence would seem to prove me wrong, but bear with me). If it was realistic to criminalise homosexuality, and the criminalisation of it would occur if a referendum found a bare majority in favour, homosexuality would be criminalised in the US and the UK, at least.

So why isn't it? Well, because we accept that people's views can be wrong, and even unworthy of respect, and should not necessarily prevail, even when the views of the majority, if they are harmful to a defined minority. Yet the views of some, maybe a majority, maybe not, are not just allowed to prevail on the subject of drugs, but are permitted to provide a framework within which to punish others severely, and furthermore, to destroy lives, families, other countries. And why? Just because that group of people thinks that others should only have types of fun it prescribes. In the UK, drug policy has become ridiculous. The government consults scientists on the question whether drugs should be prohibited or classified as dangerous. The scientists say no, which is not what the government (who can fairly be described as po-faced wowsers of the worst kind) wants to hear. So it ignores the science and goes with hysterical, irrational bullshit about "sending signals" to youngsters.

I don't mind that Gordon Broon and Jacqui Smith are fucking idiots. What I mind is that they have access to coercive power that they can use to impose their idiocy on me. It is ridiculous, in "free" countries, that we can be jailed for smoking herb just because the Broons and Smiths of this world do not think we should smoke it. There is no other basis for their stance, bar of course that the Daily Mail, the definition of the empty vessel in journalism, will slam them if they show any sign of a sane approach to drug policy.

The only way it's going to change is if the UN drops its demented desire to have a drugs-free world and accepts that we are going to continue smoking herb no matter what it does. Well, I am. Can't speak for everyone else, obv.

posted by Dr Zen @ 2:37 pm