BY DGISM
We have been deceived, cheated and limited of our freedom. The "free" state caught up in it's demagoguery has kept us in a permanent state of ignorance. Based on an argument that's no longer viable, the state has stolen our freedom. In order to continue with this outrage, this incongruent dialogue with it's own foundations, the state has used a series of arguments which, after being carefully analyzed, are arbitrary. The state through these fallacious arguments has implemented a policy of prohibition that has utterly failed and humanity has suffered it's consequences.
The consumption of substances that affect a person's physical condition has existed since the origin of man. These substances sometimes have effects that impair the body's normal state, sometimes helping, curing or preventing diseases. It's effects can be relaxing, energizing and may not even have any medical purpose, creating hallucinations and feelings of pleasure, resulting in religious or purely recreational use.
Some groups decided to ban any alteration on the body due to the intake of certain substances. Some Muslims, for example, prohibit the drinking of alcohol. Mormons prohibit the consumption of coffee. With the emergence of the modern state, in principle, these restrictions were subject to moral judgments of each person according to their religion or social group to which they belonged. The first official prohibition issued by the state appeared until the nineteenth century, coercive and punitive measures were taken to prevent anyone from violating the ban on these substances.
History has taught us that the state’s reason to prohibit drugs has been driven by economic and commercial reasons. The Free State hides this reality, arguing that drugs are harmful and addictive substances affecting humans in body and mind, eventually leading to death. Even if this is not completely false, we must understand why it is a hoax that serves as the basis for the violation of our freedom.
To begin with, drugs that are prohibited by governments are not necessarily addictive, even harmful. The proof of this is overwhelming when comparing illegal drugs to so-called legal drugs: cigarettes and alcohol. It is impossible to understand why the state considers marihuana more dangerous than cigarettes, when it’s infinitely less harmful and addictive. The same goes for many of the drugs classified as "soft drugs"
The state believes that drugs make humans vicious and inept, detrimental to society. The first image that leaps to mind when talking about someone who uses drugs is a bum, labeled as a "drug addict." Not all drug users are drug addicts. Most people who use both soft and hard drugs for recreational purposes, function perfectly in their daily lives without any problems, being as successful as anyone else academically, professionally and have no psychological or family issues. Although there is dependence, either physical or psychological for certain users, the drug user is in no need to go to rehab or end up in jail. They can possibly continue using these drugs in moderation throughout their lifes, possibly with health risks not unlike those of alcohol and cigarettes. Do drugs represent a risk to people who use them? Yes, there are many people who do not control their consumption, abuse the use of the substance, and finally become addicted. The problem arises when the state tells us that this happens in most cases, when it is actually in the least.
“The drug user necessarily dies”, this is a common lie told by the state. In most cases, death due to drug abuse occurs because these drugs are "cut" with other substances, the mixture being fatal to humans. If drugs were legalized, this would never happen.
There is a stigma in society endorsed by the state that conceives temporary alteration of perception as something bad. Recreational experience hallucinations, mood changes, inhibition and other effects caused by drugs should not be classified in this way, it is simply a state that a man voluntarily decides to experiment and, provided he does not infringe the liberties of others, he should be free to do so. The conception that considers people under the influence of drugs as necessarily violent is also a lie. In both cases we compare it with alcohol and it's intoxicating effect, though it causes some risk, it does not need to necessarily be prohibited.
A useful tool to understand the reality about drugs is a comparison between drugs and junk food. Junk food is harmful to humans. There is no argument that can refute this. From diabetes to obesity, junk food abuse can cause an incurable illness that often leads to death. So why is junk food not banned? The state would be unnecessarily limiting our freedom. Although the risks of abusing the consumption of junk food, most people eat it and are not obese and do not have diabetes, the junk food consumers that have one of the illnesses previously mentioned are the exception. The state recognizes the problem of having this type of diet and aims to educate people on the importance of eating healthy in order to prevent these diseases. The state could easily use the same arguments used for drug prohibition to also ban junk food.
The liberal state, in fact, promotes freedom among it's members. Capitalism, based on the free market, has an economic model completely inconsistent with the prohibition of drugs.
Why does the state prohibits drugs? To supposedly prevent it's citizens from harm. The state takes a paternal stand, a despotic and fascist attitude deciding for it's people. It is not the state’s responsibility to morally guide their citizens to choose one thing or another. A perfectly sane adult has all the ability to make his own decisions.
What is the only solution? The complete legalization of drugs. Both soft and hard drugs, it makes no difference, the state violates our freedom in both situations. It doesn’t matter if it's cigarettes, cocaine, alcohol, heroin or marihuana, as long as we are informed of the risks of consuming certain substances we should be the ones to decide whether to do drugs or not. The state insults our intelligence and our judgment treating us as infants. We will not be free until the time comes when we can make our own decisions.
We have been deceived, cheated and limited of our freedom. The "free" state caught up in it's demagoguery has kept us in a permanent state of ignorance. Based on an argument that's no longer viable, the state has stolen our freedom. In order to continue with this outrage, this incongruent dialogue with it's own foundations, the state has used a series of arguments which, after being carefully analyzed, are arbitrary. The state through these fallacious arguments has implemented a policy of prohibition that has utterly failed and humanity has suffered it's consequences.
The consumption of substances that affect a person's physical condition has existed since the origin of man. These substances sometimes have effects that impair the body's normal state, sometimes helping, curing or preventing diseases. It's effects can be relaxing, energizing and may not even have any medical purpose, creating hallucinations and feelings of pleasure, resulting in religious or purely recreational use.
Some groups decided to ban any alteration on the body due to the intake of certain substances. Some Muslims, for example, prohibit the drinking of alcohol. Mormons prohibit the consumption of coffee. With the emergence of the modern state, in principle, these restrictions were subject to moral judgments of each person according to their religion or social group to which they belonged. The first official prohibition issued by the state appeared until the nineteenth century, coercive and punitive measures were taken to prevent anyone from violating the ban on these substances.
History has taught us that the state’s reason to prohibit drugs has been driven by economic and commercial reasons. The Free State hides this reality, arguing that drugs are harmful and addictive substances affecting humans in body and mind, eventually leading to death. Even if this is not completely false, we must understand why it is a hoax that serves as the basis for the violation of our freedom.
To begin with, drugs that are prohibited by governments are not necessarily addictive, even harmful. The proof of this is overwhelming when comparing illegal drugs to so-called legal drugs: cigarettes and alcohol. It is impossible to understand why the state considers marihuana more dangerous than cigarettes, when it’s infinitely less harmful and addictive. The same goes for many of the drugs classified as "soft drugs"
The state believes that drugs make humans vicious and inept, detrimental to society. The first image that leaps to mind when talking about someone who uses drugs is a bum, labeled as a "drug addict." Not all drug users are drug addicts. Most people who use both soft and hard drugs for recreational purposes, function perfectly in their daily lives without any problems, being as successful as anyone else academically, professionally and have no psychological or family issues. Although there is dependence, either physical or psychological for certain users, the drug user is in no need to go to rehab or end up in jail. They can possibly continue using these drugs in moderation throughout their lifes, possibly with health risks not unlike those of alcohol and cigarettes. Do drugs represent a risk to people who use them? Yes, there are many people who do not control their consumption, abuse the use of the substance, and finally become addicted. The problem arises when the state tells us that this happens in most cases, when it is actually in the least.
“The drug user necessarily dies”, this is a common lie told by the state. In most cases, death due to drug abuse occurs because these drugs are "cut" with other substances, the mixture being fatal to humans. If drugs were legalized, this would never happen.
There is a stigma in society endorsed by the state that conceives temporary alteration of perception as something bad. Recreational experience hallucinations, mood changes, inhibition and other effects caused by drugs should not be classified in this way, it is simply a state that a man voluntarily decides to experiment and, provided he does not infringe the liberties of others, he should be free to do so. The conception that considers people under the influence of drugs as necessarily violent is also a lie. In both cases we compare it with alcohol and it's intoxicating effect, though it causes some risk, it does not need to necessarily be prohibited.
A useful tool to understand the reality about drugs is a comparison between drugs and junk food. Junk food is harmful to humans. There is no argument that can refute this. From diabetes to obesity, junk food abuse can cause an incurable illness that often leads to death. So why is junk food not banned? The state would be unnecessarily limiting our freedom. Although the risks of abusing the consumption of junk food, most people eat it and are not obese and do not have diabetes, the junk food consumers that have one of the illnesses previously mentioned are the exception. The state recognizes the problem of having this type of diet and aims to educate people on the importance of eating healthy in order to prevent these diseases. The state could easily use the same arguments used for drug prohibition to also ban junk food.
The liberal state, in fact, promotes freedom among it's members. Capitalism, based on the free market, has an economic model completely inconsistent with the prohibition of drugs.
Why does the state prohibits drugs? To supposedly prevent it's citizens from harm. The state takes a paternal stand, a despotic and fascist attitude deciding for it's people. It is not the state’s responsibility to morally guide their citizens to choose one thing or another. A perfectly sane adult has all the ability to make his own decisions.
What is the only solution? The complete legalization of drugs. Both soft and hard drugs, it makes no difference, the state violates our freedom in both situations. It doesn’t matter if it's cigarettes, cocaine, alcohol, heroin or marihuana, as long as we are informed of the risks of consuming certain substances we should be the ones to decide whether to do drugs or not. The state insults our intelligence and our judgment treating us as infants. We will not be free until the time comes when we can make our own decisions.