Dear Mr. President,
On my way to work this morning I read a New York Times report on an increase in serious mental illnesses on college campuses and corresponding budget cuts which limit the amount of help students can receive. While my own college experience certainly corroborates this, at least anecdotally, my thoughts went first to a mentally ill man we'd recently caught shoplifting at work. When my coworkers and I stopped him he seemed docile enough (if completely delusional) but once in custody he apparently became quite agitated and made threats against the lives of the arresting officers. A man with a similar illness recently committed a murder in my neighborhood, and so the idea of this shoplifter being released worries me for the safety of those who might cross his path once he's released.
There is an old police superstition about the increase in crime and craziness around the full moon. I've heard it from my parents, from other cops, and from the family of law enforcement. I don't know if I believe this. There is a certain amount of mystery to law enforcement I suppose; there have been times when just looking at a person has told me that they're going to steal. I know my coworkers have experienced this, too. I like to think our brains are perceiving something-the aggressive gait, or the furtive looks- that our conscious minds can't identify. But, absent proof of this, I have to at least consider the possibility that maybe there is some small supernatural aspect to understanding when people are ill-intentioned or dangerous. Maybe the full moon means something. (If so, tonight's lunar eclipse is going to make the whole city nuts.)
I don't think that crazy people can be dismissed as solely a celestial phenomena. Our city (and our state, and our country) need to do more to treat the mentally ill-both to ensure public safety and to help individuals function in society. That this area seems to be the quickest to be cut during budget battles is unsettling. Reading this article about the struggle to keep students in crisis alive, I couldn't help but wonder what could possibly be more important than treating those who pose a risk to themselves or others. As I talk to my peers and appreciate how many of us are frustrated at living life constantly struggling just to get by, I can't help but sympathize with those seriously ill I encounter who aren't even doing that well. Because if it's the economy or stress or the full moon, if it's college kids or homeless schizophrenic shoplifters, we all have an interest in understanding, treating and minimizing the harm of mental illness.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts
Monday, December 20, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Day 289- A bit late
Dear Mr. President,
It's much later than I usually post my letter to you. Since it won't, at all, affect the time you receive the letter, I'm sure this will go unnoticed. I like to think my excuse- I was playing my oft-repeated role as Designated Driver for a few friends who'd had way too much to drink- is worthy enough that those who do read this online won't judge me for missing midnight by several hours. I spent the evening around people I care about, people I respect, people who have achieved the kind of goals in life I'm supposed to be setting for myself- graduate degrees, successful careers, marriage, family- and found very little to make me want any of it. Through it all I felt incredibly out of place, unable to relate to the things that make them happy or even the things they find important. By the end of the night, as I was attempting to herd drunk friend into safe modes of transportation and get them home, I'd been thinking a lot about the midterms.
I started the night out with a clear agenda, an ambitious idea of how the night would go and what was important to me. l was quickly forced to compromise. The conflicting agendas of others, the logistical complications, the whole evening began to feel a lot like I've always imagined negotiating a piece of legislation through congress would feel. By the time I was struggling with drunk friends to keep them safe and get them home, I felt like I was fighting the forces of gravity just to hold my sanity together. Forget about my agenda; it had been lost for hours. Not to belittle the complexity of your current political situation, by comparing to to a bunch of drunk kids at a bar, or anything. You're a big fan of the responsible-driver vs. the republicans metaphor, and tonight i regretted ever cynically complaining about how overused that particular fable has become in your stump speech. The whole country handed you the keys and said they were just going to have a couple beers. You look around now and every one is screaming about marxism and your birth certificate and Obamacare and you have to wonder why you agreed to stay sober in the first place. No one will listen to you, or take your advice, or let you just fix things the way you want to. Even when inebriated, we Americans tend to be pretty protective of the idea of our own superior judgement as individuals.
I don't imagine that I've done anything more tonight than found a small my-life-sized analogy to the massive problems and struggles you face. But I think you're making the right call. Because, for a moment, I leaned back against my friend's car to appreciate the stars, and thought about the absurdity of it all. I almost laughed, because the night had already gotten so far away from funny that there was nothing else to do. I don't know if it helped me at all, but I can say that at least no one got hurt, and at least every one got to a safe place to sleep. You may have had the most tedious night of your life and be surrounded on all sides by fellow Democrats stumbling and senseless with the fear of the whims of a capricious public, but you're still criss-crossing the campaign trail, making your case, recognizing that even if you can't keep your agenda you can at least get every one home in one piece.
It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. Tonight, I am immensely grateful that it's you and not me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
It's much later than I usually post my letter to you. Since it won't, at all, affect the time you receive the letter, I'm sure this will go unnoticed. I like to think my excuse- I was playing my oft-repeated role as Designated Driver for a few friends who'd had way too much to drink- is worthy enough that those who do read this online won't judge me for missing midnight by several hours. I spent the evening around people I care about, people I respect, people who have achieved the kind of goals in life I'm supposed to be setting for myself- graduate degrees, successful careers, marriage, family- and found very little to make me want any of it. Through it all I felt incredibly out of place, unable to relate to the things that make them happy or even the things they find important. By the end of the night, as I was attempting to herd drunk friend into safe modes of transportation and get them home, I'd been thinking a lot about the midterms.
I started the night out with a clear agenda, an ambitious idea of how the night would go and what was important to me. l was quickly forced to compromise. The conflicting agendas of others, the logistical complications, the whole evening began to feel a lot like I've always imagined negotiating a piece of legislation through congress would feel. By the time I was struggling with drunk friends to keep them safe and get them home, I felt like I was fighting the forces of gravity just to hold my sanity together. Forget about my agenda; it had been lost for hours. Not to belittle the complexity of your current political situation, by comparing to to a bunch of drunk kids at a bar, or anything. You're a big fan of the responsible-driver vs. the republicans metaphor, and tonight i regretted ever cynically complaining about how overused that particular fable has become in your stump speech. The whole country handed you the keys and said they were just going to have a couple beers. You look around now and every one is screaming about marxism and your birth certificate and Obamacare and you have to wonder why you agreed to stay sober in the first place. No one will listen to you, or take your advice, or let you just fix things the way you want to. Even when inebriated, we Americans tend to be pretty protective of the idea of our own superior judgement as individuals.
I don't imagine that I've done anything more tonight than found a small my-life-sized analogy to the massive problems and struggles you face. But I think you're making the right call. Because, for a moment, I leaned back against my friend's car to appreciate the stars, and thought about the absurdity of it all. I almost laughed, because the night had already gotten so far away from funny that there was nothing else to do. I don't know if it helped me at all, but I can say that at least no one got hurt, and at least every one got to a safe place to sleep. You may have had the most tedious night of your life and be surrounded on all sides by fellow Democrats stumbling and senseless with the fear of the whims of a capricious public, but you're still criss-crossing the campaign trail, making your case, recognizing that even if you can't keep your agenda you can at least get every one home in one piece.
It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. Tonight, I am immensely grateful that it's you and not me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Day 262- Carrot sticks
Dear Mr. President,
Glenn Beck is continuing to hone the skill that made him popular- telling people what they want to hear. Today he has decided to attack the First Lady for the Let's Move campaign, which he inexplicably sees as a threat to his french fries. Beck makes people feel good about their bad choices. Don't let the government tell you what to eat! Don't let them take your freedom fries! He's the ultimate enabler. I have no problem with Beck eating french fries until his arteries turn entirely to trans fat. I'm sure the First Lady doesn't, either. Attempting to combat the undeniable epidemic of obesity and weight-related diseases by improving the way children in this country learn about healthy lifestyle choices is admirable, and exactly no threat to Beck's, or any one's access to french fries. The conversation is uncomfortable; many people probably feel guilty about the choices they make when it comes to food and exercise. I'm sure many of these people would rather be told that they are fine and that no one should be allowed to talk about better choices they could make, as Beck does.
What Beck is doing is pathetic and ultimately perpetuates the problem of complacency, but it is nothing compared to what the government does. Our government has provided $300 billion in federal subsidies of the commodity crops corn and soy, which have made exactly the kind of processed food we should be avoiding cheaper and more accessible than ever. While the First Lady campaigns tirelessly to encourage healthier eating, your federal budget continues to undercut her efforts. All of the positive role models in the sports world can't have half the impact of altering the economic reality that processed, nutritionally bankrupt food-like-substances are cheap and widely available. Poverty is an undeniable factor in this epidemic, as well, and must be addressed in a more comprehensive way before we can expect to see any real improvement.
Taxing soda and snack food is an often-suggested way to reduce consumption. I think that's a great plan, but I know enough junk-food addicts who would fiercely oppose such a tax that I can understand why you might not want to undertake such a step in an election year. Ending subsidies of corn and soy, however, would slowly raise the cost of processing these foods, raising their price (and saving huge amounts of money for taxpayers) without directly taxing consumption.
The First Lady is having a difficult conversation with the country. Telling people that they haven't been doing right by their children is never easy, but it is a truth that must be told. Many will turn to the false comfort of people like Beck who will assure them that their way of life is sacred, untouchable. But unless policies that support the First Lady's efforts are put into place, our health and the health of our planet will continue to suffer the effects of heavily subsidized, cheap, insubstantial calories. This seems like an obvious example of Democrats saying the right thing and being completely unable to back it up with substantial policy changes. Is it any coincidence that the states with the highest obesity and poverty levels also tend to be so-called red states? Maybe it's a stretch, but I think that people generally want to be healthier and more economically stable than they want to be told comforting lies. In the absence of politicians with the courage to offer these things, however, i can see why they'd at least choose the lies that make them feel good over empty promises.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Glenn Beck is continuing to hone the skill that made him popular- telling people what they want to hear. Today he has decided to attack the First Lady for the Let's Move campaign, which he inexplicably sees as a threat to his french fries. Beck makes people feel good about their bad choices. Don't let the government tell you what to eat! Don't let them take your freedom fries! He's the ultimate enabler. I have no problem with Beck eating french fries until his arteries turn entirely to trans fat. I'm sure the First Lady doesn't, either. Attempting to combat the undeniable epidemic of obesity and weight-related diseases by improving the way children in this country learn about healthy lifestyle choices is admirable, and exactly no threat to Beck's, or any one's access to french fries. The conversation is uncomfortable; many people probably feel guilty about the choices they make when it comes to food and exercise. I'm sure many of these people would rather be told that they are fine and that no one should be allowed to talk about better choices they could make, as Beck does.
What Beck is doing is pathetic and ultimately perpetuates the problem of complacency, but it is nothing compared to what the government does. Our government has provided $300 billion in federal subsidies of the commodity crops corn and soy, which have made exactly the kind of processed food we should be avoiding cheaper and more accessible than ever. While the First Lady campaigns tirelessly to encourage healthier eating, your federal budget continues to undercut her efforts. All of the positive role models in the sports world can't have half the impact of altering the economic reality that processed, nutritionally bankrupt food-like-substances are cheap and widely available. Poverty is an undeniable factor in this epidemic, as well, and must be addressed in a more comprehensive way before we can expect to see any real improvement.
Taxing soda and snack food is an often-suggested way to reduce consumption. I think that's a great plan, but I know enough junk-food addicts who would fiercely oppose such a tax that I can understand why you might not want to undertake such a step in an election year. Ending subsidies of corn and soy, however, would slowly raise the cost of processing these foods, raising their price (and saving huge amounts of money for taxpayers) without directly taxing consumption.
The First Lady is having a difficult conversation with the country. Telling people that they haven't been doing right by their children is never easy, but it is a truth that must be told. Many will turn to the false comfort of people like Beck who will assure them that their way of life is sacred, untouchable. But unless policies that support the First Lady's efforts are put into place, our health and the health of our planet will continue to suffer the effects of heavily subsidized, cheap, insubstantial calories. This seems like an obvious example of Democrats saying the right thing and being completely unable to back it up with substantial policy changes. Is it any coincidence that the states with the highest obesity and poverty levels also tend to be so-called red states? Maybe it's a stretch, but I think that people generally want to be healthier and more economically stable than they want to be told comforting lies. In the absence of politicians with the courage to offer these things, however, i can see why they'd at least choose the lies that make them feel good over empty promises.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Day 167-Earth Day Monday
Dear Mr. President,
I, and many others, have been calling on you to take the opportunity, now that the graphic images demonstrating the toll of our oil addiction are still shocking Americans into questioning their behavior, to call on all Americans to change our habits in order to avoid another incident like this one. Today I read an article that convinced me we've been wrong to do so. Americans have outgrown the spirit of sacrifice and community that got us through WWII; when President Bush asked only that we keep shopping, we were only too happy to comply. I want you to ask us to change, to give up some of the luxuries we're used to for the greater good of sustaining our planet for generations to come. I want you to do this, but I know that, even if you did, it might only mean the end of your Presidency, and have little effect on our actual habits.
So today's letter, Mr. President, isn't for you. It's for all the people who read my blog. It isn't many, mostly friends and family, but I'm hoping it will be enough. This is as big a soap box as I will ever have. So, dear readers, I ask you to take a look at your own lives, your own habits. How can you use less oil? How can you make transportation and food and lifestyle choices that will help you consume less? Can you encourage others in your life to do the same? Even small changes will add up if enough of us commit to them. I'm making a commitment to all of you, and to our President, to make the small changes necessary in my own life, to give up the things that I can live without, if it means a better world for my nephew. Many of us have a holy day, a day set aside for the sacred; I'm proposing that we, no matter what our faith, chose one day a week to devote to the planet as well. We should give up a day to the reverence of the earth, to tend our gardens or clean up parks or, at the very least, to give up consuming fast food, especially beef, and unnecessary driving. We need an Earth Day every single week. What greater display of faith could their be, than to put aside our instant gratification, for the betterment of future generations?
My Earth Day is going to be every Monday. I'm going to do more research about reducing my oil consumption and overall carbon footprint, and post a more detailed plan here. I hope that every one who reads this can find a small sacrifice to make in their own lives. Because, be it today or tomorrow, things have to change.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I, and many others, have been calling on you to take the opportunity, now that the graphic images demonstrating the toll of our oil addiction are still shocking Americans into questioning their behavior, to call on all Americans to change our habits in order to avoid another incident like this one. Today I read an article that convinced me we've been wrong to do so. Americans have outgrown the spirit of sacrifice and community that got us through WWII; when President Bush asked only that we keep shopping, we were only too happy to comply. I want you to ask us to change, to give up some of the luxuries we're used to for the greater good of sustaining our planet for generations to come. I want you to do this, but I know that, even if you did, it might only mean the end of your Presidency, and have little effect on our actual habits.
So today's letter, Mr. President, isn't for you. It's for all the people who read my blog. It isn't many, mostly friends and family, but I'm hoping it will be enough. This is as big a soap box as I will ever have. So, dear readers, I ask you to take a look at your own lives, your own habits. How can you use less oil? How can you make transportation and food and lifestyle choices that will help you consume less? Can you encourage others in your life to do the same? Even small changes will add up if enough of us commit to them. I'm making a commitment to all of you, and to our President, to make the small changes necessary in my own life, to give up the things that I can live without, if it means a better world for my nephew. Many of us have a holy day, a day set aside for the sacred; I'm proposing that we, no matter what our faith, chose one day a week to devote to the planet as well. We should give up a day to the reverence of the earth, to tend our gardens or clean up parks or, at the very least, to give up consuming fast food, especially beef, and unnecessary driving. We need an Earth Day every single week. What greater display of faith could their be, than to put aside our instant gratification, for the betterment of future generations?
My Earth Day is going to be every Monday. I'm going to do more research about reducing my oil consumption and overall carbon footprint, and post a more detailed plan here. I hope that every one who reads this can find a small sacrifice to make in their own lives. Because, be it today or tomorrow, things have to change.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Day 142- Moonshine
Dear Mr. President,
The oil spill keeps coming up in odd conversations today. A coworker asked me if I'd written to you about it, after she'd learnt the extent of the damage. A customer, before driving off with his latte, asked if we'd heard about the 10-mile underwater plumes. My Aunt, visiting from California, brought up the ominous feelings she's been having about how much worse it could get. It's been on my mind all day, so perhaps it's understandable that when I saw the headline for Nicholas Kristof's op-ed, "Moonshine or the kids?" I thought it was a reference to the oil spill. The op-ed is actually about misplaced priorities amongst the poorest families in Africa who struggle with substance abuse problems. But it might as well be about the boomer generation.
It's not that I think they're bad parents. I think, for the most part, parents want to do the right thing for their children, to act in their best interest. But, be it cheap oil or lower taxes or wracking up credit card debit instead of saving for college, the generation that has steered our nation to its current state has been quick to trade long-term interest for immediate gratification. To keep drinking the moonshine.
The conversation with my coworker quickly devolved into a litany of things that are wrong with the world, things that scare us, if we think about them too much. The world is so messed up, I told her, and I just don't know how to fix it. Getting angry at those that brought us here, the generation that came before, won't help me fix it. I know this. I think you're a long-term thinker, Mr. President, and what many would call inaction is in fact a strategy that considers the next five generations and not just the next five years. I hope that this perception is an accurate one; if we do not change the way we think, start seeing our children's legacy as more valuable than our next fix, they will never forgive us.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Day 89
Dear Mr. President,
The announcement that the US is going to resume off-shore oil drilling is truly disappointing. It is difficult to see this concession to the right as anything other than a political ploy to avert the 'disaster' of public discontentment at a coming rise in oil prices. Mr. President, you know that off-shore drilling will not change the basic reality that we use too much oil and that it will one day run out. We have to find viable alternatives and the majority of Americans will not support the endeavor to find such alternatives unless the price of oil goes up. We simply do not act unless it is in our immediate interest to do so, and I don't think it is unrealistically cynical to believe that the political will of much of America is more directly related to present economic realities than it is to our long term best interests.
If this move is, in reality, an attempt to demonstrate the urgency for energy alternatives by showing Americans that off-shore drilling won't alleviate rising oil prices quickly or significantly enough, or to preemptively combat the idea that your administration isn't exhausting all of our options, than I am sorry that the cost of such a strategy is so high. Instead of turning to a quick and simple solution (which, we both know, is no solution at all) we ought to be telling the hard truths; our current system in unsustainable. Our public works, agricultural and transportation systems are too important to depend on a resource that will not last. Either the systems or their dependence must be changes. This will be far less popular than continuing to tear through the Atlantic ocean in hopes of extending our fix a few more years, but future generations will never forgive us if we do not do these difficult things now, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The announcement that the US is going to resume off-shore oil drilling is truly disappointing. It is difficult to see this concession to the right as anything other than a political ploy to avert the 'disaster' of public discontentment at a coming rise in oil prices. Mr. President, you know that off-shore drilling will not change the basic reality that we use too much oil and that it will one day run out. We have to find viable alternatives and the majority of Americans will not support the endeavor to find such alternatives unless the price of oil goes up. We simply do not act unless it is in our immediate interest to do so, and I don't think it is unrealistically cynical to believe that the political will of much of America is more directly related to present economic realities than it is to our long term best interests.
If this move is, in reality, an attempt to demonstrate the urgency for energy alternatives by showing Americans that off-shore drilling won't alleviate rising oil prices quickly or significantly enough, or to preemptively combat the idea that your administration isn't exhausting all of our options, than I am sorry that the cost of such a strategy is so high. Instead of turning to a quick and simple solution (which, we both know, is no solution at all) we ought to be telling the hard truths; our current system in unsustainable. Our public works, agricultural and transportation systems are too important to depend on a resource that will not last. Either the systems or their dependence must be changes. This will be far less popular than continuing to tear through the Atlantic ocean in hopes of extending our fix a few more years, but future generations will never forgive us if we do not do these difficult things now, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 15, 2010
Day 74
UPDATE: Carly Fiorina of the Demon Sheep fame is at it again, with a new ad featuring Senator Barbara Boxer's head as a giant, California-attacking blimp.
Dear Mr. President,
The news of the murders in Juarez were deeply upsetting. Fighting the corruption and violence of Drug trafficking is an important part of treating America's drug problem. I see firsthand the effects of addiction on the urban poor, the homeless and often mentally ill population that migrate through all parts of the city, from my neighborhood to my downtown bookstore. Drug addictions lead to theft, assault and other crimes. But I have friends who routinely use drugs, as well, some in responsible, non-harmful ways. Certainly it is hard to get past the moral implications of the system they support when they buy drugs- they may pay a dealer, but, somewhere, a drug lord is the one making the profit.
My own life has been affected by drugs in many ways. In Boise, I saw the dangerous affects of methamphetamine on a co-worker and neighbor who started a fire in our building one night. While sober, he was a soft-spoken man, grateful for the second chance offered to him by his job and new apartment. When he was using, however, he became violent and paranoid, so convinced that I had slighted him that he came after me with a gun. I was saved by the protection of my boss and the intervention of our neighbors, but it was the first time I understood the dangers of addiction. My young nephew's father also struggles with addiction, stealing from his employers and choosing heroin over his own children. We haven't seen or heard from him in over a year, and, because of his choices, his son will grow up knowing another father entirely. The number of shoplifters I have caught, in Seattle and in DC, who stole books and movies to sell for drug money demonstrate the desperation addiction causes and the violence this can result in.
So how can I reconcile the "recreational" use of drugs by my friends with the dangers and downsides? I think the easiest way to take power away from the drug cartels is to reform the way Americans consume drugs. I think marijuana needs to be legalized, so that it can be domestically produced, taxed, and regulated. The effects of marijuana are less harmful than tobacco an alcohol abuse, and the greatest harm is caused by its illegality, not its use. I think the argument that it can be a gateway drug actually supports legalization- a marijuana user today has already decided to do so in the face of the law, and so trying other illegal drugs does not require much additional risk. If marijuana were legal, I'd imagine that users would be less likely to take the risk of moving on to illegal drugs. A user today already has a dealer, a connection even by proxy to the world of illegal drugs. Allowing them to go through legal sources would cut down on the prevalence of illegal dealers, limiting sources for other drugs. I don't know any one who chooses not to use pot because it is illegal. Many people, (like myself) choose not to use it for reasons unrelated to the law. Personally I find it pretty disgusting, and that isn't going to change if it becomes legal.
We can't win the "war on drugs" while we fund both sides, just as we can't win the war on terror by perpetuating the oppressive practices that fuel recruiting efforts and anti-American sentiments. We may be better-armed, better-trained and better-funded, but so long as we have to win and the other side just has to stay alive, we'll never be able to stop fighting. (An aside, and perhaps worth an entirely separate letter, but if we can try Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla in Federal court, why can't we try terror suspects? Zambada-Niebla is surely as much an enemy combatant as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and no one is claiming he should be denied due process.) We must accept that we cannot win within the current paradigm, and changing the system is the only way to make real progress at addressing the terrible effects of the drug trade on our country and the world.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
The news of the murders in Juarez were deeply upsetting. Fighting the corruption and violence of Drug trafficking is an important part of treating America's drug problem. I see firsthand the effects of addiction on the urban poor, the homeless and often mentally ill population that migrate through all parts of the city, from my neighborhood to my downtown bookstore. Drug addictions lead to theft, assault and other crimes. But I have friends who routinely use drugs, as well, some in responsible, non-harmful ways. Certainly it is hard to get past the moral implications of the system they support when they buy drugs- they may pay a dealer, but, somewhere, a drug lord is the one making the profit.
My own life has been affected by drugs in many ways. In Boise, I saw the dangerous affects of methamphetamine on a co-worker and neighbor who started a fire in our building one night. While sober, he was a soft-spoken man, grateful for the second chance offered to him by his job and new apartment. When he was using, however, he became violent and paranoid, so convinced that I had slighted him that he came after me with a gun. I was saved by the protection of my boss and the intervention of our neighbors, but it was the first time I understood the dangers of addiction. My young nephew's father also struggles with addiction, stealing from his employers and choosing heroin over his own children. We haven't seen or heard from him in over a year, and, because of his choices, his son will grow up knowing another father entirely. The number of shoplifters I have caught, in Seattle and in DC, who stole books and movies to sell for drug money demonstrate the desperation addiction causes and the violence this can result in.
So how can I reconcile the "recreational" use of drugs by my friends with the dangers and downsides? I think the easiest way to take power away from the drug cartels is to reform the way Americans consume drugs. I think marijuana needs to be legalized, so that it can be domestically produced, taxed, and regulated. The effects of marijuana are less harmful than tobacco an alcohol abuse, and the greatest harm is caused by its illegality, not its use. I think the argument that it can be a gateway drug actually supports legalization- a marijuana user today has already decided to do so in the face of the law, and so trying other illegal drugs does not require much additional risk. If marijuana were legal, I'd imagine that users would be less likely to take the risk of moving on to illegal drugs. A user today already has a dealer, a connection even by proxy to the world of illegal drugs. Allowing them to go through legal sources would cut down on the prevalence of illegal dealers, limiting sources for other drugs. I don't know any one who chooses not to use pot because it is illegal. Many people, (like myself) choose not to use it for reasons unrelated to the law. Personally I find it pretty disgusting, and that isn't going to change if it becomes legal.
We can't win the "war on drugs" while we fund both sides, just as we can't win the war on terror by perpetuating the oppressive practices that fuel recruiting efforts and anti-American sentiments. We may be better-armed, better-trained and better-funded, but so long as we have to win and the other side just has to stay alive, we'll never be able to stop fighting. (An aside, and perhaps worth an entirely separate letter, but if we can try Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla in Federal court, why can't we try terror suspects? Zambada-Niebla is surely as much an enemy combatant as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and no one is claiming he should be denied due process.) We must accept that we cannot win within the current paradigm, and changing the system is the only way to make real progress at addressing the terrible effects of the drug trade on our country and the world.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
