In the film The Godfather an interesting situation is set up. The question of whether the Corleone family should begin dealing in illegal narcotics surfaces. It is very akin to our current dilemma regarding legalizing some "softer" drugs, such as marijuana. Viewers or readers, depending on your preference, are taken through the catch 22 that Corleone is presented with. He could embrace the new wave of narcotics, prosper, and continue his criminal dominance. On the other hand, he is bothered by what narcotics represent, mainly their reprehensible force morally. Would his connections protect his empire if he dealt drugs versus traditional "harmless vices" as prostitution or gambling? There is no way to avoid the onslaught of narcotics, their power and ability to make money, yet, at what price?
Today, the debate surrounding legalization of such narcotics as marijuana resembles the same problem Corleone was presented with. Ironically, many of the same arguments are used in our political discourse as were used in Puzo's work. We have those who argue that there is no way to stem the tide of narcotics. They bring in too much money to those who traffic them. As well, modern law enforcement is impotent to stopping the steady stream of mind-altering substances that either come into our country or are made here. People are allowed to use whatever they so desire, so why do we restrict them from "frying their brains?" Legally, you can become an alcoholic, a depressed and at times violent human, so why cannot people be stoned all day where they are more lethargic than dangerous?
Opponents to such measures argue the "slippery slope" argument. If we legalize just marijuana, what is next? Perhaps LSD, then perhaps heroin, then finally cocaine would be our legal drug available for purchase. We cannot stop them from coming into our country so why not legalize them all? There is no half way solution to this problem, either we stop them all or legalize them all. Since legalizing all drugs is not possible, then we can legalize none. Further, what kind of morality do you have when you can legalize narcotics? What kind of responsible state allows its citizens to become stoned and all drugged out legally?
What results is two dialogues that can never be reconciled. The fact is we cannot solve this problem in one fellow swoop. On the one hand, saving billions from stopping drugs which cannot be stopped, and even taxing those drugs that are legal is attractive. Like those attracted to drugs in The Godfather, there is an economic gain to be made. What difference does it make when the struggle is already lost? People are going to do drugs, so why not capitalize on their degeneracy? That argument holds a lot of merit to it. Billions are being laid to waste while we battle gangs and people that in actuality are much more dynamic than our formal law enforcement agencies. How is the battle against drugs any different than our battle fought in the jungles of Vietnam? We are fighting a battle which cannot be won.
The fact of the matter is there is no reason why we should not fight this battle. I do not want to digress into the rhetoric of the "drug war," but the fact is, there should not be a legalization of drugs in any way because of the slippery slope. If drugs become legal, people will abuse them. Today there is a great deterrence from using them because they are illegal. Of course many dabble with drugs, but the fact they are morally unacceptable means that the majority of those who do not dabble seriously do so for that reason. Those that do drugs are a minority, and not only that, they are a minority who actually will find something else to dabble into since it is different from society. Why should we give up trying to stop drugs when people are in fact not addicted to doing drugs? The majority of Americans may try them, but are not addicted to drugs. There is a small portion of the population in need of serious help. Instead of legalizing something for the benefit of a few, perhaps we should continue to fight the struggle with more education. Children today understand that narcotics are not good. One loses their freedom when they become addicted to narcotics. To have narcotics in our society is profoundly anti-democratic since the state allows an individual to become enslaved (addicted) to whatever.
I am not saying that the struggle to stop drugs has been a complete success. In fact there is much that needs to be done to help us continue to stop drugs from ruining families. But to legislate to legalize drugs is a farce. We have not lost anything in this struggle. Drug use has declined in recent years. Addicts are more and more marginalized from society. We are not naive in our experimentation that we think cocaine is not addictive, that heroin does not create an addict, that crack is a desirable alternative to reality, that ecstasy is a good party drug, and that marijuana makes you more intelligent. Experimentation cannot be legislated against, much like underage drinking and smoking. There is no way to prevent some people from falling into addictions with any habit. Indeed, to alter the equation would only lead to more problems. In the end, I think there should be a reconsideration of how our "war on drugs" is viewed. If anything, we have succeeded because we are not a nation of drug users. Let those that want to do them do them, that is their right. However, when one breaks the law, their consequences will be far ranging and serious. Perhaps the deterrence is not there in the fear of law enforcement, but it is enough to deter that majority that could theoretically become addicts.
-By: Stephen Sachs
