Drugs Case

Is it possible to win the war on drugs? Is there any reason to have a war on drugs in the first place? Why should we have laws banning narcotics anyway? These questions have been debated for what seems like forever and it seems that the debate is just as alive today as it was forty to fifty years ago. It seems that writer Gore Vidal (1925-2012) had a pretty spirited view on the subject as well. In his essay from the September 26, 1970 issue of the New York Times, Vidal makes an argument for the legalization of narcotics.

In his Essay, Vidal opens with “It is possible to stop most drug addiction in the United States within a very short period of time”. (Vidal) This bold thesis is then backed up with his argument that by legalizing drugs such as cocaine, marijuana and heroin we could win the current war on drugs and save millions of people from the grasp of addiction. According to the author, the government could simply make the drugs available in convenient packaging and sell them at cost with labels applied warning users of all the effects (good and bad) and letting Americans make their own decision whether to use them or not.

Besides offering a remedy for the issue, Vidal also notes that the founders of our nation believed that all men were endowed with certain rights like the pursuit of happiness. Vidal further suggests that a “reasonably sane” individual will choose not to use drugs. For those that are not blessed with sanity, they should have the legal right to kill themselves enjoying their drug of choice. He further goes on to use the example of the prohibition debacle to prove his point, showing how crime and alcohol abuse thrived due to the being banned in the 1920’s and 30’s. He also states “addicts would not commit crimes to pay for the next fix” (Vidal), basically saying that if there were no money to be made in the sale of drugs, that all crime currently committed associated with illegal drugs would disappear along with the law enforcement agencies designed to combat those crimes.

Let’s look at Vidal’s argument point by point. After stating his thesis (it’s possible to stop drug addiction quickly), the author states that by legalizing all narcotics, packaging them with honest labels describing all effects whether good or bad and selling these at cost, making it profitless. Though a nice thought, I feel this statement seems to conveniently forget the cost involved in growing packaging and selling these narcotics. By legalizing narcotics, you make them susceptible to the markets just like any other commodity, unless it is all grown, packaged and sold by the government in which case tax payers would be footing the bill. This idea is a little misleading and by not taking into account all of the money involved in bringing these drugs to market, Vidal is removing information that could debunk his argument.

On his second point, the author states “I have tried - once - almost every