One of the effects of the War on Drugs is that it pushes moderate users such as myself into the closet. It is only because I post nicknonymously that I dare to admit that I smoke a couple ounces of high grade marijuana a year, trip on mushrooms every two or three months and on other psychedelics more rarely. Two summers ago, when the opportunity presented itself, I also consumed a gram of cocaine over a period of about a month. All this while being an appreciated husband and a productive employee.

When all one sees are the blatant abusers, "punish the drug users until they quit or die" seems merely harsh. Given Simon's take on self-medication, it is inhumane. Applied to people such as myself, and, believe me, there are lots of us out there, it would be harmful to society as a whole.

It would be useful to know why this person wants to punish the drug users--to save them from themselves or to save others from them. Chances are the answer is "a bit of each", but the response to each is different so I would try to find out his primary motive before getting too deep into the discussion.

P.S. I agree wholeheartedly with triticale--one of the side-effects of criminalizing drugs is that it puts the spotlight on the worst abusers and pretends that these are the typical cases. And then there's all that stuff about bringing in the criminal element.

All the politicians want to punish somebody. They call this "the business of the American people."

If that's really true, we've become a fascist people.

Brett,

Ugly isn't it.

You can see the sickness on the land. And yet so few speak out.

Thank the maker for you, the above commenters, our blog host Eric and others like them.

Thank you, M.Simon.

What I don't understand is why so few see something so obvious.

As infected by New Deal collectivism as they were, the G.I. generation were born close enough to the Republic to admonish their children to "mind your own business!"

This folk phrase sums up the ideals of the American Revolution, enjoining us at once to take care of ourselves and to leave others alone, that they may do so.

For some reason, the postwar generations have not been able to stomach this concept.

Brett,

I've been trying to figure out where we went wrong. I blame it on the Jews (I'm Jewish myself so hang on a minute).

The genocides of WW2 were emphasized as against the Jews and solely promoted by the evil mad man Hitler. "Never again" was only about the Jews. The Jews made the mistake of only talking about the six million and not the twelve. I always thought it was a mistake to elevate Jewish suffering over the suffering of all of Hitlers victims. They still do it and it is wrong.

Instead of studying genocide as a process we have conceived of it as merely a historical event. Instead of seeing the roots in human nature, it was seen as particular to that time in history.

It all comes from the Jewish conception of man as inherently good. Such a view lets them forgive their enemies as misled. However, it opens the door for the next time.

I think the Catholic view of man as "fallen" comes closer to the truth. The tendency to genocide is in all of us and must be monitored in order to prevent its expression. We must stop looking for devils. Demon rum, demon drugs, demon people. Every instance of good and evil must be dealt with on its own merits.

We are hard wired to ascribe to the group the behaviors of individuals. To be civilized we must watch ourselves as much as we watch others. In a way we must all be Zen Masters.

While a product of the Christian West, I've never been a believer in any religion.

As for Christianity, its ethic of forgiveness has always pained me by its injustice--it rewards the aggressive and violent! I consider the secular left to be but Christian heretics, whom Rand dubbed the "mystics of muscle."

While man's imperfections demand government to secure his rights, a government limited for the same purpose must enforce but a limited morality. Life, liberty, and property is the sum of that reduction.

I think the Jewish ethic of forgiveness is better.

One must repent and apologize.

I think the Jewish ethic of forgiveness is better.

One must repent and apologize.

This is also the Christian ethic, or at least the one espoused in Jesus's parables.

I explain it to my kids like this: If I lend someone my car, and he or she gets drunk and crashes it, I'll forgive them, but I will also expect restitution. Also, I'm under no obligation to lend my car to that individual again. Forgiveness is not the same thing as forgetfulness or foolhardiness; it's about not bearing a grudge for past wrongs.