The Nuances of Drug Illegality (and why they don't make sense)

Many would openly admit to relaxing in front of the television with a beer or glass of wine after a rough day at work and the ensuing drive home through rush-hour traffic. It's called unwinding, and there's no law against it so long as you're the proper age. Morally, the act of drinking becomes reprehensible only when done in excess. Yet, many who enjoy their drinking look at other drugs with unease or disgust. In some cases, the reaction is warranted. Some drugs can damage the cells of the human body beyond repair. Drug abuse can also be linked with a number of violent crimes. Yet, ironically, when taken in excess, alcohol fits snugly into both of these categories. While not as addictive or dangerous as some other substances, heroin for example, studies have repeatedly shown that it is more dangerous than some other substances, substances which are illegal to consume. One of these is marijuana.

Cannabis is naturally-occurring and poses few threats to the consumer. While smoking it can irritate the lungs in the same way that smoking cigarettes does, marijuana contains no harmful carcinogens, which have been linked the the development and proliferation of various cancers. Furthermore, it creates no physical dependency. Research even suggests that marijuana stimulates appetite and fights cancer cells. Why should such a substance be illegal?

The answer is simple-and alarming: it is politically convenient. While an article published by D.A.R.E. argues that medical marijuana dispensaries' profit margins undermine their premise of compassion for the terminally ill, nothing is said about the profits enjoyed by the operators of privatized prisons who have taken in thousands for possessing even negligible amounts of cannabis.

Wikileaks, OpenWatch, and the move toward accountability

In a democratic society, elected officials must be held to the highest standards of accountability; they must serve the people and the state-not themselves. Yet, few would declare after a thorough scan of the current political and economic landscape that this is the case. There is a deep divide between what should be and what is. Corporations clamor for the same rights and protections that have been extended to individuals. Those whose duty it is to lead us through financial crisis betray our trust and pursue their own agendas. Appeals to pathos are at an all-time high, and, as essentially emotional beings, we are easily swayed to believe that we are somehow morally superior to our neighbors who may hold values that are at odds with our own. With our time divided between wrongfully placing blame on "the other side" and thoughtlessly consuming on every possible level, those who govern us are free to do as they please. They must only insure that two basic needs are met: the populace must be fed and they must be entertained. This appraisal is not meant to suggest that we have no responsible leaders, but merely to suggest that, in general, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The government we know now is little more than a corporatocracy dressed as democracy. Accountability, I feel, is the key to the restoration of a truly democratic system. The people must unite and they must adopt a vested interest in the fate of their nation. But, assuming these conditions had been met, how should we demand accountability? What potential do emerging technologies hold for our mission? Is it possible to go too far? Is it acceptable to do "the wrong thing" if it accomplishes something good? Is it necessary?

Wikileaks has released documents pertaining to a number of sensitive operations, and startling classified information has been put directly into the hands of the people. The tech-savvy have their techniques for avoiding detection while downloading these files. It is easy to argue that we have a right to know, and yet, how many lives are endangered by what we know? If we are entitled to knowing everything, then why do we place such a high value on the protection of privacy? Can the people be trusted with what they learn? Furthermore, knowledge is but the first step. Assuming that we learn things that we feel should be public knowledge, What do we do with this information? Must we first insure that the majority of people are knowledgeable about sensitive data before making public demands of our government? What protections do we have when we arm ourselves with information that was denied us by our government in the first place? The government must be held accountable, but so must the people.

Another movement that warrants consideration is Open Watch.

Library Resources