Regardless of where you sit on the so-called “political spectrum”, I would venture to say that most individuals would agree in basic principle on most things; the differences however (and sadly, the vitriol) come largely from our disagreements in how to accomplish certain outcomes.

A prime example of this is when we talk about whether to legalize certain (or perhaps even all) drugs, plants, fungi, or any substance that may be viewed as potentially dangerous or that leads to vice.

Most wouldn’t hesitate to agree that the end goal is for a society that is less violent, has fewer overdose deaths, fewer people helplessly addicted, and most importantly one that protects the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, with that in mind, I attempt a look into the general possibility of drug legalization (which would to include various classes of currently illicit substances).

History is sadly replete with examples of drug-prohibition related violence.

What caused “Prohibition” (the prohibition of alcohol during 1920-1933 in the United States) to fuel gangland violence and strengthen organized crime during this period?

A change in the distribution network.

Let me elaborate:

Previous to 1920, family owned businesses and regular companies with shareholders, corporate officers, and legal liability were distributing beer, wine, whiskey, etc.  Once prohibition hit, demand didn’t proverbially “dry-up”, rather, there was simply a change in the distribution network.

Instead of family businesses and corporations, organized crime and “moonshiners” stepped-in to fill the demand.

Instead of having beverages brewed under careful supervision (public liability to provide consistent and uncontaminated products), organized crime and various other moonshiners whipped up their own concoctions, which inevitably lead to products tainted with methanol (the dangerous cousin of ethanol that can potentially cause blindness and death) and other potentially dangerous or deadly compounds when the brew had an unknown provenance.

Additionally, due to the inherent possibility of criminal prosecution for distributing alcohol, those doing so would turn to providing beverages with the highest alcohol content possible, to minimize the bulk of a shipment, allowing for easier, more covert transportation.

So instead of a beer truck hauling beer with approximately 3 to 5% alcohol content, the moonshiners and organized crime were often pushing the upper limits of high alcohol content to as high as 95%, minimizing their risk of detection, but certainly upping the risk to the end-consumer.

Very sadly, the modern world is replete with far greater degrees of violence and contamination due to drug prohibition that make 1920s “Americana” look like a walk in the park.

The drug war in Mexico has averaged greater than 20,000 deaths per year for more than a decade now!  Nearly a quarter million people in 10 years, and why?  Drug cartels, prohibition.

But why do drug cartels exist?  Similar to the above explanation, there is a demand for their product.  Since the product is illegal, high risk is involved in it’s delivery, and therefore the desired product becomes even more valuable (just as in the 1920s during the above mentioned “Prohibition” period).

Previous to the modern trouble in Mexico, cartels (of course) existed and similarly intolerable degrees of violence happened throughout Central and South America, with an epicenter in Columbia during the 1970s through the 1990s.

All this was an inevitable consequence of Nixon’s “War on Drugs”, which every subsequent presidential administration has continued to pursue.

Today the world at large, and perhaps especially the United States, is being affected by an “opioid crisis”.

Addiction to opioids, commonly prescribed by doctors, has lead many unwitting patients into the dark paths of addiction.  When the doctors are no longer willing to prescribe or provide for the addicted person’s requirements, the addict (sadly, but predictably) will often turn to the black-market in search of ever more potent and dangerous opioids such as heroin.

To maximize profit, and minimize shipments (again similar to “Prohibition”) drug dealers have once again resorted to ever more dangerous strategies to deploy their product, reduce their risks, and make more money.

One recent strategy is “cutting-in” synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanyl, which are up to 5,000 times as potent as a unit of heroin.  Such “spiking” of heroin with said substances has lead to a massive surge in overdose deaths in the US, to the extent that average life expectancy is currently in decline in America.

Again, these are the results of drug prohibition.  Saying something is illegal doesn’t make it go away.  It just makes the market for it more opaque, dangerous, and expensive.

The above anecdotes are with respect to arguably three of the most dangerous drugs consumed, namely alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.  But each has relatively benign analogues:

Alcohol consumed in beer, while definitely having the potential for danger, takes a much higher level of total consumption to reach inebriation than say, a hard liquor.  A person having just a beer with lunch or dinner is hardly someone involved in high-risk behavior.

Similarly, Peruvians and Bolivians that chew coca-leaves to offset the effects of working in high-altitudes are hardly high-risk users when compared to those using the highly processed and concentrated derivative of the coca-leaf: cocaine.

And Aunt Betty taking a “Lortab” after surgery is probably not the opioid user you or I are worried about.

It then seems absurd to consider certain “drugs” that are found in nature and used in their natural (not concentrated) state to have such staunch opposition to their legalization.

Of course, the most evident is so-called marijuana legislation.  It is bizarre that there is not (at minimum) a federal allowance for medicinal cannabis.

Many who oppose it’s legalization may be surprised that cocaine (of all things) is actually approved for medicinal purposes.  Granted, while limited to things like nose surgeries and it’s use as an anesthetic, it is commonly used in modern medicine.

Why not allow those suffering from terminal cancer or going through chemotherapy, or dealing with epileptic seizures, etc. the use of cannabis to ease their condition and pain?

Granted there are many other potential uses, but those are some of the more dire conditions many face who potentially could benefit.

Similarly, many with PTSD and other mental conditions have found help with psychedelics such as “magic mushrooms” which contain the naturally occurring  psychoactive compound psilocybin.

Yet even synthetics such as LSD have shown therapeutic benefits for many.

In controlled settings and in prescribed amounts, these can be safely administered and show potential for improving patients mental states and helping them deal with life-altering mental and emotional struggles.

Beyond medical marijuana, magic mushrooms, or mere marshmallows, why does any governing body have the right to tell you what to consume?

Maybe instead of turning to pain-killers, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications, etc., many could find relief in less toxic, less addictive, and less deadly ways.

Do these various substances have potential for abuse?  Absolutely.  Can they result in dangerous behavior?  Indeed.  But that can be said for many things used in society that aren’t illegal, and especially many of the legally prescribed medications doctors dole out every day.

Education is the most important thing.

This requires time, effort, and an open mind, but the results can be lead people to beneficial treatments and away from addictive and destructive substances.

Instead of shouting the slogan so many of us heard growing up of “Just Say No!”, perhaps we could have open conversations with each-other and our children about the effects, dangers, and potential for abuse and addiction, or treatment and therapy, that any given substance has.

At the end of the day, a substance is just a tool.  It is neither inherently good or bad.  Like a car, a gun, a computer, a knife, a smartphone, they can all be used to in beneficial ways or destructive ways.  The utility depends on the user.

We are free agents unto ourselves, we are responsible for the wise or foolish use of any tool.

We don’t need “Big Brother” to tell us what tools we can or can’t use.

What we need is for people of all backgrounds to educate each other so that we can make the best and most responsible decisions for our individual and family circumstances.