drug essay

Jessica Power
May 12, 2010
Drug Essay
Philo 5

I believe that certain drugs, such as marijuana, should be legalized when society has decided it is prepared to make those substances available to everyone. People should have the ability to self-medicate using whatever substance they choose. Drugs are not inherently addictive, although some may be more likely to cause addiction due to their potency. It is up to the person consuming the substance whether or not to use it excessively and risk addiction. Since most people over the age of 18 or 21 are granted rights to certain substances because they are officially deemed responsible enough to handle them, why should those people be denied access to other substances that are illegal but have that capacity to be handled maturely without leading to addiction?
The created a pamphlet in 2003 called “Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization”. In it they listed their top ten “facts” against legalizing drug use. Fact 3 states: “Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful”. However, Daniel Shapiro argues in his essay “Addiction and Drug Policy” that “people tend to addict themselves to various substances” (Shapiro 535). Drugs exist and they have certain chemical properties that tend to create pleasurable experiences for people. The fact that some people overuse these drugs to achieve and excessive and constant supply of that pleasure does not mean that the drug is inherently addictive. Anything, when used excessively for pleasure can become an addiction: such as alcohol, cigarettes, food, prescription drugs, sex, adrenaline . . . Shapiro argues that the reason the majority of people do not become addicts is because they have responsibilities in their lives to maintain such as work and family and the society and culture they are living in tends to give guidelines and rules to help people use substance in moderation (Shapiro 532, 533).
The DEA also argues that drugs such as marijuana should only be used for medicinal purposes with the guidance of licensed physicians and “crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in hand”. Thomas Szasz argues in his essay “The Ethics of Addiction: An Argument in Favor of Letting Americans Take Any Drug They Want” that people making drugs legal to patients with a doctor’s supervision takes away a person’s autonomy and control over his body (Szasz 520). If people really want to harm themselves or kill themselves using substances, they can do it with anything not just drugs (Szasz 515). To assume that people are not capable of maintaining their lives with the use of certain drugs such as marijuana, but still allowing them to access to alcohol and cigarettes is a hypocritical contradiction. And to assume that anyone who uses a drug would then fall into a life of crime is even more insulting. Correlation does not prove causation in terms of drugs and violence or crime.
At this point in America, especially in California it socially acceptable to consume certain drugs, such as marijuana. In California you can wear a shirt with marijuana plant on it and expect to get the same sort of reaction as wearing a shirt with Bud Light beer. People don’t necessarily think highly of people who consume substances such as alcohol or marijuana for recreational use, but they also wouldn’t argue that that individual is not entitled to the right to use those substances. Since some drugs can be more physically and mentally detrimental when abused, most people choose not to use them –such as meth or cocaine. If time passes and those drugs become more commonly used and assimilated into people’s daily lives, then they too will probably come up as having the potential to be legalized. As long as people are informed about the effects of the substances they consume, they should be allowed to take whatever they want.