It's a provocative suggestion, isn't it? Shabu (methamphetamine) is destructive to one's health and well-being, so why would anyone say that it should be decriminalized? Wouldn't decriminalization encourage widespread use and lead to a societal meltdown? The short answer is no, it wouldn't.
Decriminalization could mean any number of things, however, so we'll take it one step further: shabu should be fully and radically decriminalized in the Philippines. There should be no government-enforced penalty for the use, possession, sale, or manufacturing of shabu (dangers related to production notwithstanding). Legalization is a viable option, but it implies taxation, which is theft, and governmental regulation, which is unnecessary. (Government as we know it is itself unnecessary, but that is a topic for another discussion.)
Before we talk about some of the reasons why shabu users, dealers, and manufacturers should be left alone, it needs to be made clear that methamphetamine should not be used. The highly-addictive substance is bad stuff, and its use should neither be commended nor encouraged. Within their own, respective spheres of influence, families, churches, individuals, and private organizations should discourage its use and facilitate help to those who need it.
So, why should government step out of the way? The first reason is purely ethical, and it is this: criminalization violates the non-aggression principle. This applies to the use, production, and sale of the drug. If non-violent individuals are engaging in free trade and it involves shabu, their business is their business, and it's wrong for anyone to initiate force against them. Just because a particular product is deemed undesirable for use (and it may very well be), it doesn't justify governmental coercion against those involved in its use, production, or distribution.
Given what has just been asserted, it needs to be plainly stated that all drugs should be decriminalized in the Philippines. Penalties for drug violations are inherently unjust, and they presuppose a view of government that needs to be challenged. As it pertains to drugs, arrest and imprisonment should be viewed as kidnapping, and--take note, Duterte supporters--execution should be seen as murder. Just because it's "the law" that prescribes such penalties, it doesn't make those penalties right. Initiation of force against non-violent individuals is immoral, and drug criminalization makes government an unjustified aggressor.
It might be objected that certain individuals given to drug use or involved in the drug trade are violent. Even so, this does nothing to justify prohibition and it ignores what should be glaringly obvious. Prohibition opens the door to violence, not only on the part of government against non-violent people, but also on the part of drug gangs who will go to any length to secure their monopolized power. It also drives up drug prices, resulting in certain addicts committing various crimes in order to afford purchase. Rather than validate a need for drug criminalization, these facts refute it.
There's more to consider. It has already been asserted that taxation is theft, and it is. Citizens are extorted out of their money and forced to pay for things that are better left to the free market. These things include health care, education, public roads, etc. They also include all of the expenses involved in drug criminalization, and they add up! Given what has been stated thus far, isn't it better to stop persecuting and imprisoning drug offenders altogether? It makes sense monetarily. Housing people in dungeons called prisons ain't exactly free, and neither is funding all of the drug warriors who make a living off of drug prohibition.
For the aforementioned reasons, shabu should be totally decriminalized in the Philippines. All drugs should be, and a step toward decriminalization would be a step in the right direction. The current drug war is more problematic than that which it is purportedly intended to fix. Moreover, it won't be won, but that's a topic for another post.
I like this post. Though I disagree with it. I ran out of upvote juice (20 limit) so I can only comment. Great job by the way.
.
Thanks, darthnava! I originally replied while signed onto my wife's account by mistake. Haha. Anyway, thank you.
I think harmful drugs should be criminalized to the extent that you can't sell/buy them or use in public. Methamphetamine is dangerous and shouldn't be easily obtainable. Drugs like weed and acid should be 100% legal.
But as always, only legal for 18+.
Hi! Thanks for your feedback. The non-aggression principle is axiomatic when it comes to this, IMO, and it leads me to different conclusions. I normally expect a little push-back on my posts, however. ;-)
I definitely agree. All drugs should be decriminalized. However, the only caveat to that is that the drug addicts might still be the same scum as they used to be and will mug other people to get money for a fix. I think this phase of the drug war is necessary to reduce the ratio of involved over non-involved in the drug trade. Furthermore, it's their own bodies, so let them fuck themselves up. Enforcing should be done when the drug users become violent and start hurting other people.
Hi, @donlevon. Thanks for your feedback. I believe prohibition is inherently immoral and that pragmatic reasons for the drug war aren't enough to justify its continuation. Also, I don't think there's any evidence to support the notion that it reduces the ratio of involved over non-involved. However, I do agree that drug users should be dealt with forcefully only when they become violent toward other people. Aggression isn't always wrong. In the form of self-defense, for example, it's perfectly justifiable.
Meth is not dangerous as you claim. There are millions of people who use meth recreationally just like some do alcohol or cocaine. I have only tried meth a few times in my life and it's not my preferred drug but I am a drug expert. Millions of children are dosed with meth each day in the form of Ritalin and other ADHD medications. I don't agree with dosing that many children with meth and I'm positive ADHD medications are overprescribed. However, since there are millions of kids using meth each day, if it were as dangerous as you say, it would show in the kids. A better explanation for meth is that it does destroy many addicts lives...but those are addicts. Just like alcohol is used safely by millions, alcohol is very dangerous for alcoholics. I hope this helps. Peace and love. Barry
@barrycooper: Thanks for your input. As I understand it, Ritalin and other ADHD medications are similar to meth, but they're not chemically identical to it. However, I'll concede the point and say that many users of meth do not experience the detrimental effects experienced by addicts (at least not in degree). I tend to think it's intrinsically harmful, though, and I think there's evidence to support that. I make beer and alcohol recommendations, but I'd never suggest a hit of ice. With that said, I agree that alcohol can destroy addicts just as much as meth can.
I may have done meth a couple times in my early 20s, but inadvertently, in powder form. For the record, though, I did do a lot of drugs that I don't recommend to people for recreation: cocaine (powder and crack), Xanax, heroin (occasionally), pain pills, and other drugs. The only drug I'm addicted to now is caffeine, and I enjoy cannabis, which is good for me. Herb can easily be classified as a health supplement as well as a natural medicine. Hallucinogens may be beneficial every now and then. I was 15 when I first did LSD and I grew shrooms in my 20s.
Anyway, I also decry the mass drugging of children. In many cases, it coincides with a natural unwillingness on the part of kids to sit still during government indoctrination in public schools (i.e., government schools). They don't fall in line with the program, and hence, they're drugged with meth-like prescription drugs. It's sad, Man.
While I agree with you in theory, meth can have some nasty effects.