by Jordana Starr | COUNTERPOINT: Students are victims of drug laws, not drug crimes.
A growing number of Tufts students smoke pot. According to the 2004 Drug & Alcohol Use Report, 84 percent of students at this top tier university have imbibed in the illegal leafy green drug. The results from this study illustrate the fact that despite the existence of drug laws, many students simply do not care to obey them. Most do not get caught, and they go on and live productive and fulfilling lives. Those that do get caught can face probations, suspensions, expulsions, and even incarceration. While drugs may have some harm of their own, it’s the drug laws that are the most dangerous to students.
Tufts senior Marcus Mattingly’s recent arrest on drug charges may have taken one alleged drug dealer off the streets, but his incarceration will hardly contribute to the betterment of society. The economic implication can be crippling. Although the effect of one supplier on the market is generally negligible, mass arrests of all found suppliers within this black market aversely impacts cost. A steady product demand combined with decreased suppliers will increase the per gram cost—anyone who’s sat in on one microeconomics class could draw a basic supply and demand curve to illustrate this point. With a degree from Tufts and entrepreneurial experience within the black market, Mattingly had potential to be a creator of many jobs and much economic growth. As the price increases, users will need to find another way to afford their fix: either work longer hours, contribute less to the market as a whole, or in more dire situations, commit theft.
Proponents of the War on Drugs will argue Mattingly’s arrest will impact the 8.6 percent of Tufts students who reported using cocaine in the 2004 Drug & Alcohol Use Report. Of course it will; some students will have to find a different dealer, some students will pay more for a gram of coke, and Mattingly’s arrest will surely inspire a student or two to fill his niche in the market to bring prices back down.
The supporters of the War on Drugs ignore the cold, hard facts: even if the government could successfully eliminate all the drugs found on the controlled substance list, people would still find something else to smoke, snort, huff, or shoot up. When it comes to chemically altering one’s brain, where there’s a will, there’s definitely a way. Rather than acknowledge this truth of human nature, anti-drug lobbyists instead rally behind the kind of tired arguments provided by D.A.R.E. education.
“Drugs are harmful.” True, most drugs, when abused, can be harmful to the user. Acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and psuedophendrine are all drugs which, if improperly administered, can be lethal. Not only are these drugs potentially very dangerous, they are sold over the counter in drugstores and supermarkets nationwide, commonly under the brand names Tylenol, Advil, and Sudafed.
“Illicit substances are addictive.” Some are, like cocaine and heroine, and some are not, like marijuana and LSD. Some legal drugs can also be highly addictive, such as caffeine, percoset, and vicodin. Although some people will form a psychological dependence on otherwise chemically non-addictive drugs, these same people are apt to form unhealthy addictions toward non-drugs, like television or exercise.
“Drugs impair cognitive and spatial ability.” Yes, in fact, NyQuil manufacturers insist that people refrain from operating motor vehicles while taking the medicine. Laws which govern road safety, including the OUI and DWI infractions, already take care of this issue—it is illegal to operate a vehicle while under the influence of any substance which may impair one’s ability to drive. For that same reason, people are encouraged not to drive while tired or emotionally charged.
Proponents of the War on Drugs will nonetheless insist upon this inconsistent drug policy. Equally inconsistent are the US laws governing alcohol. Some of the most oppressive nations on Earth permit young adults to have a drink, but the Land of the Free considers 18-year olds too young to enjoy a brew.
Since the drinking age increased from 18 to 21, college administrators have had to deal with providing a safe environment for their students while still obeying the law. This has proved difficult, as students—who are going to drink despite the law—choose to drink in non-social locations or pre-game before alcohol-free events. Even Dean of Students Bruce Reitman has acknowledged on numerous occasions that incidences of alcohol abuse have been on the rise since the age shift, attributing the “forbidden fruit” factor to irresponsible alcohol use.
Because of the state law, however, the University is forced to reluctantly impose alcohol sanctions on students. While a keg in a fraternity, or a shot of vodka in a dorm room may cause no harm, the fraternity that has to pay the fine or the student who gets Probation suffers the consequences.
It’s time to free society from these oppressive laws. Drug laws harm more people than drugs themselves. It is time to end this crusade against victimless crimes, and surrender in the Drug War.
Miss Starr is a junior majoring in Political Science and Philosophy.
Comments