Prompted by “Drug Testing”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/06/drug-testing/
“Pretty much all recreational drugs can be safe if used responsibly and appropriately. But a critical key to that is knowing what’s in them. And that’s a real problem when they’re controlled by the black market. Having a regulated system that controls the purity and contaminants in drugs would save so many.”
Certain Drug Prohibition is undeniably a problematic regulated system. Traditional political leftists want to distinguish between prohibition and regulation (claiming the latter would be effective), but the latter is simply textured prohibition (i.e. a more granular banning signature).
Commonly proposed and championed is the need for another regulated system to fix the current regulated system.
Coercive judicial regulations sound responsible when only examining the direct intention to do good.
However, they’re not without cost. That includes precious taxpayer resources, “slippery slope” legal precedence facilitating more textured prohibitions on a “sky’s the limit” number of fronts “for our protection”, and at least questionable effectiveness.
“Strict law-enforcement, stemming from the UN convention treaties, of well-known established drugs such as MDMA has paved the way for a new market of unknown substances and an emerging culture of legal highs. This is no more clearly seen than through the banning of a number of precursor chemicals used to make MDMA – the most well-known being the 50 tonne seizure of safrole in Thailand back in 2010. This led to a significant dent in availability for MDMA production and so chemists looked for alternative ways and means of production.
Unfortunately, the use of anise oil as a replacement precursor resulted in the product PMA. Consequently, international governments have inadvertently allowed more dangerous chemicals to enter the drugs market by cutting the supply of MDMA.”
Society condones laws against drug availability to protect the children, and the result is dangerous alternatives. Spice instead of cannabis to pass drug tests, 25I to replace “Hoffman grade” LSD, and so on.
No intelligent person can possibly support Certain Drug Prohibition. The failure to protect the children (and everyone else) is obvious, but the pressure to sustain the prohibition is equally obvious — because we can’t trust the government to sacrifice their power even for public safety (and prohibition grants ample power). We can expect them to lie to the public (to sustain and grow their power against public safety). We can expect them to fight until the public simply will have no more of it and demand that power removal (even by revolutionary force, if sadly necessary).
The only enemy of corruption is sufficient public exposure. That’s why government transparency is popularly desired (and why that transparency is often promised but undelivered).
Is it really wise to apply broadest reaching regulations (i.e. a ‘regulate use to oppose abuse’ mindset), and all of the burdens against people exercising the liberty to use recreational drugs and the professionals supplying those drugs in this case, just to deal with the overwhelming minority of abusers on both fronts — especially when we know law itself has been abused way too often throughout history?
Let’s ask the people worried about “Big Marijuana” and the idea that federal regulations may severely limit the number of places one can buy cannabis — and the fear of lawfully contaminating cannabis products to save money for those big businesses effectively due to government sanctioned monopolistic behavior.
Let’s talk about someone making a major breakthrough on solar technology (btw) — at least according to one of my best friends close to that someone — but government regulations influenced by the oil industry are preventing that technology from reaching people wanting a much healthier wilderness pressure. Regulations are often defined by the people in power, so often contaminated even to the point of making politicians look good for a photo op, but that’s all folks. Regulations are set to prevent contamination elsewhere (food, environment, etc.), but what’s set to ironically prevent regulation contamination? Nothing without transparency and enough public care.
Let’s talk about reality, and the fact that tragedy is inherent within reality, so risk is always pressing, and failure of health is inevitable. To define risk is to define liberty. To define liberty is to dictate your life.
Let’s talk about objective (i.e. fair, so just) law that protects an unalienable right to liberty — so liberty to do anything but infringe upon that right is maximized to allow the overwhelmingly complex number of lifestyles to flow optimally smoothly for better health and innovation.
At the end of the day, I maintain reality is always a set of pros and cons (the glass is always half full and half empty).
That means choose your poison/antidote.
I choose the unalienable right to liberty, because I’m a very unique and responsible man that suffers more from excessive government interference — and believes that abuse on all fronts (especially law) must be opposed, with scientific constitutionalism (i.e. conclusively — never suggestively — objectively defined harm, law, and liberty for fairness, so justice and health) being the only logical possibility to prevent that most serious abuse.
Either way, let’s talk (so we can righteously walk).
Leave a Reply