Jug Suraiya writes in The Times of India that it was the criminalization of drugs that killed British teenager Scarlett Keeling in Goa, and then puts forth an almost passionate plea to legalize drugs. He bases his arguments on two contentions (or facts). First, that drugs are less of a health hazard than cigarettes or alcohol. Second, that the legal system is spending an inordinate amount of time trying to enforce the drug laws.
As someone who has (thankfully) kept away from all three vices, I cannot throw in a personal angle in analyzing which of the three – booze, smoke or coke – are more injurious. However the sense that I get from whatever I have seen, heard or read is that drugs are more injurious. Suraiya, in his article, writes that there are studies to prove that the other two are deadlier, but does not cite any; therefore, and for a gamut of other reasons, I consider this argument unsound. I think drugs attack the central nervous system, and this is dangerous. Is this not one of the reasons Don Vito Corleone refuses to get into the drug business with Virgil Sollozzo?
To me personally, the argument about which is more injurious is as naive (the i should have two dots) as trying to reason whether a knife driven through one’s heart will be more dangerous than a bullet through the temple.
The second argument is borrowed from libertarians. Because it takes a lot of effort to enforce drug laws, the legal system cannot focus on other issues. So let us legalize drugs. Yeah, right! So if you wanted to put the lawyers out of business, the way to do it is to legalize all crime – drugs, prostitution, murder, theft… Come, let’s go kill a few folks, and then argue that because the legal system is paralyzed by the number of murder trials, it is better to make homicides legal. (If that were to be done, I would take first aim at Jug Suraiya.)
Back in my Infosys days, I was told that whereas solving a problem was important, addressing the root cause of the issue was even more critical. And then there is this argument that says the legal system should cop out before it is choked.
To create some sort of a social assent for this kind of stupidity, Suraiya says:
Though in the Indic tradition, drugs like charas are routinely used by sadhus and tantriks, and bhang is a staple of Holi.
Not a baseless argument; but definitely base. To look at tradition selectively just to seek out the vices of earlier generations goes against common sense. There were so many good habits and actions that the sadhus preached and practised. And to ignore all of that and just to hold on their negatives is foolish.
Suraiya’s arguments from the economic standpoint might be well-founded. But legitimizing substance (ab)use would only lead to more abuse. It is unfortunate that our world is so irretrievable that the best preventive mechanism we have against drugs is not our own sense of right and wrong, but the legal system. And if that barrier is also removed, we might, in the future, look back upon it as the time we let drugs flood our homes. And so, instead of reading about girls like Scarlette in the news, we would have to contend with them at home.
Let my country awake!
No related posts.
Tags: drugs, legalization, legitimization, opinion, substance abuse
Matty on 
March 13th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Why do you advocate your “religious” formula of a long, healthy life on someone else? Perhaps, someone else wants to live just 50 years, enjoy a few pleasures the 90 year olds didn’t experience. Their own objective function. Its a personal choice. As long as you are just speaking for VKpedia, its fine with me.
Why should government, an entity formed to just help create a certain minimal order for co-existence of diverse people, legislate a blanket ban on drugs as long as they are not the cause of other violent crime. To say that drugs are the “source” of violent crime is like saying something like Rasagolla, containing sugars, is the cause of diabetes. Why don’t we ban all sweets then – for imparting so much sugar and fat and leading to unhealthy lifestyles? Why don’t you write a post on how hopelessly prone to obesity, diabetes, heart disease a fair amount of the world is and how we should legislate laws to ban foods containing excess complex carbohydrate?
It should be an individual’s choice to consume or not. It should be an individual’s choice to stay close/not to such a person. If it evolves into a societal choice, let it evolve naturally into a soft societal choice. Useless hard societal choices are as BS as Jug Suraiya’s ‘Sadhus consumed it too’ argument.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Karthik, I disagree (well, could I have said anything else?) But I must say that drugs v/s rasagollas is an interesting analogy.
First. I do not entirely concur with your notion that a man should live out his life as he chooses to. If you had kids, and your neighbor was a coke-head, chances are your curious brat would want to know what cocaine smells like. And when he does get it, your recourse would be to run to a rehabilitation center. I’m advocating prevention; you are advocating destruction (or experimentation). That’s the basic difference. In short, man has a social responsibility. So while substance abuse could be an individual’s choice, you don’t want your kids, who cannot possibly exercise the correct choice, in possession of drugs.
In fact, I’m all for drug trade being illegal, because it keeps drugs out of the reach of such experimenters who cannot afford it. The high cost itself would prove a barrier.
As for rasagollas, you won’t be shocked if the neighbor offered your kid one, would you? Diabetes is a killer, no doubt, but diabetics are still in control of most of their actions.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I am reminded of something I read about Chanakya’s Arthashastra. He is supposed to have said 2500 years ago that a day shall come when people will become so used to doing the wrong things, that they would stop recognizing them as being wrong (I would substitute stupid in place of wrong there). Probably we are living in the age he predicted.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Sharma,
Perhaps, that’s evidence that such commendatory theses on how other people should live had achieved a fairly mature state 2500 years ago.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:28 am
After saying that you cannot comment on the three vices since you havent had them, you have commented feely on their effects. What did you think the cigarettes affect? the nostrils? The nicotine flows throw the blood and all three have their effects on the nervous system dude.
When it is said the Sadhus have marijuana, instead of condemning the imagined insult to the homage-worthy Sadhus, is it not just to consider the nature of different drugs before coming to any conclusion?
Just for the record, I have no stand on the issue. I am confused as to why the UP Government sells marijuana in owned-operated outlets in the holy city of Varanasi for consumption by people of all ages, not just Sadhus.
VKpedia has irretrievably gone past the line of redemption in being conservative. By which I mean getting as impervious to reason as the worst of them.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Gokul, thanks for adding “nostrils” to the list of body parts affected by smoke. The point about bringing in the nervous system is that, I believe coke affects it more directly than the other two. And we don’t want a situation where something that lets people lose control of themselves almost totally is more accessible.
Second. I criticized the comparison to the sadhus not because I was intent on deflecting the insult. I condemn their usage too. The larger point, which I may have not brought out more clearly, or you may have missed, is that we should not justify or try to legitimize drugs based on the argument that it was done by a section of society many centuries ago. (Also, one must consider that the sadhus “could” have had the mental and physical power to endure the ill-effects of “ganja”, which our spoilt-rich kids might lack.)
Just for the record, I know your stated position on legalizing flesh trade, and I have disagreed with your view in the past. I do not intend to say that your views on drugs could be an extension of that. As for the availability of marijuana in Varanasi, I have no comment other than that I condemn that too.
This blog, and in effect, my own self, may be impervious to reason, but my opposition to drugs is based on reasons beyond just reason. I can only reiterate my lament on the reality that confronts us today – we have gone beyond basing our actions on what is right and what is not.
And if coke-snorting is your definition of being liberal or civilized, I would be glad to remain in my own irretrievable cave of conservatism.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
>>This blog, and in effect, my own self, may be impervious to reason, but my opposition to drugs is based on reasons beyond just reason.
Exactly. I rest my case.
>>we have gone beyond basing our actions on what is right >>and what is not.
I hesitate to accept existing value judgements of what is right and wrong without exerting one’s own reason on it.
>>And if coke-snorting is your definition of being liberal or >>civilized, I would be glad to remain in my own irretrievable >>cave of conservatism.
Its not my definition of being liberal and/or civilised.
Being liberal with the intellect and one’s own perception of life is all.
What I find deplorable is the instinct to be subservient to the status-quo and handed down values and ‘rights’ and wrongs’ rather than valuing the existing reality of one’s own perception and intellect.
As an extreme example, while even religion can be contorted to inhuman forms with the former mindset Enlightenment is possible with the latter.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Gokul, here is a simple question. What would be your reaction if your child turned cokehead? And argued that his / her actions were right given the economics of the drug trade and his / her own valuation of the existing reality of his / her own perception and intellect?
While I agree that my views mirror the handed down values, I fail to see how my opposition to coke-snorting can be deemed as not in line with the perception and intellect of a sound (coke-free) mind.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:36 am
>> Though in the Indic tradition, drugs like charas are routinely used by sadhus and tantriks, and bhang is a staple of Holi.
Ho,please dont tell sadhus were using drugs.
It’s all in understanding Hinduism.these a**hole guys doesn’t understand hinduism and keep on writin scrap that becomes history to the next gen. it’s all good people (Brahmins) whose value dimnish throughout generation.
Let me tell you ,during chanakya period or before that , (from brahmin family)people aged between 40 to 50 will leave home in search of god. They pray near himalayas and only take vegetables as source of food.These were great people. As civlization improved , brahmins were trying different profession.Remember whichever profession they took , had knowledge,honesty and respect.They will leave a good deed for the henceforth.
As other people started following brahmin ways of livin life. They became sadhu,not only they became sadhu , the strict rules followed by brahmins were loosened, here and they removed some rules,cause they thought it was hard.In contrast,Brahmin go by heart,even if the path is hard,they knew that ,they will bear fruit.
THE PROBLEM HERE ,the mistake made by other caste people ,is not asking Brahmin people ,how to live a life. They just saw from 3rd person perspective, did everything wrongly , modified way of life.and here we are .Suraiya ,please ask any of the older people in particular community before commenting,because what you say will be the advise to the younger gen (ages 8 – 15)
As Alan Moore says in VFOR VENDETTA
“WORDS WILL ALWAYS RETAIN THEIR POWER. WORDS FOR THE MEANS TO MEANINGS, AND FOR THOSE WHO LISTEN ,THE renunciation OF THE TRUTH “
March 20th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
@Kubrick: I am a Brahmin (by birth), and I reject (and denounce!) your hypothesis that good people = Brahmins. Your statement is casteism of the worst order.
The argument that I made is not about whether it is correct or not for Brahmins to take to drugs. It is much larger in scope, and I pray it not be viewed from the casteist angle.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Your first argument is correct and Suraiya is wrong on several counts. The libertarian argument is not framed very well here – there is little doubt that drugs are more dangerous than cigarettes/alcohol (I don’t know where Suraiya gets his ‘medical evidence’ from; how dangerous a drug is evaluated on the basis of not just how addictive it is but what other acute consequences it has). He would have been on better ground If he had made the standard argument that the individual rather than the state ought to decide whether drug abuse is acceptable or not. This philosophy would therefore dictate that individual should decide whether the pleasure derived from using drugs outweighs the harm done to themselves. Had he made this point, he might have gotten farther than by insisting that they are less harmful than cigarettes/alcohol. As for your argument about your kids being subjected to bad influence by a neighbor, the libertarian view of individual responsibility would enjoin the parents to assume the responsibility to safeguard their kids from such influence (you are perfectly entitled to inculcate in them the values of your choice which they are equally entitled to reject if they so choose when they grow up); the same equally applies to the neighbor but if you are thinking how you would prevent a guy high on something from harming your kids, that brings us to the second argument about how libertarians view the legal system.
Libertarian insistence on legalization is based on the notion of rule of law through enforcement, not prevention for the latter would inevitably result in loss of individual freedom. The threat of punishment would therefore deter your neighbor from nosing around with your family and if he does not, there is nothing under this philosophy that would bar you from having him thrown in jail. Prostitution and pornography are therefore perfectly acceptable because they cause no harm to any third party but murder is not.
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
Came over here via DesiPundit. I am all for legalizing drugs and let me state my reasons for it. I haven’t read the other article you have linked. But take it as a counter argument to your position.
If you agree that drugs(marijuana, cocaine, heroine etc) are the mind altering drugs, then you must agree that cigarettes and alcohol are also mind altering substances. All of these are lethal when consumed in excess of your body can handle.
If you have legalized alcohol and tobacco, whats is the reason for not legalizing other drugs? Once the alcohol and tobacco are legalized, you have system in place for regulating the industry(eg % of alcohol content). You can not buy these substances if you are underage.
One thing you have to realize that outlaws will always do outlaw things. Tomorrow if you put a blanket ban on alcohol, plenty of moonshiners will appear. So legalizing drugs will take the criminal intent out of it.
Finally your own choice of not using alcohol or tobacco proves that even though they are legal, you have made conscious choice of not taking them.
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Ketan, I disagree with you on that. The point is that drug consumption is NOT right. Taking the criminal intent out of it is like arguing that even murder is right if only we can change the law to take the criminal intent out of it. I consider drugs to be more evil than alcohol and smoke, so my point is to do away with drugs, not to restrict their usage.
As for my own choice in these matters, I consider myself fortunate to have had an upbringing that has helped me demarcate right from wrong. Scarlett Keeling’s upbringing did not, and if not for drugs and alcohol, she might have been alive and well today.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
VK,
I see that Pilid above, has completed the liberal argument (wrt kids getting influenced etc) and was wondering if you are intending a reply.
I also wonder how many other places on the internet one can find these same arguments over and over in multiple forms/issues. Perhaps, a christian catholic blog denouncing gay marriages (destroying the sanctity of marriage), some liberals trying to make “sane” arguments against it, some dork coming in to make a blanket racist/sexist comment. Suuu.. mudiyalla!
I agree the comparison maybe a little too much but I am sure one can find a more reasonable comparison on similar lines!
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 am
good to see you blogging again in vigorous form pal…
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
You are a cretin to pass judgment about things you know nothing about.
I’ve done weed, alcohol, cigarettes, and guess what, the illegal drug – weed is the least addictive of the three. Also the most pleasurable.
If anything, I should pass judgement on this issue.
I’ve done magic mushrooms too, they’re one of the top 5 experiences of my life.
Here’s my view: there are too many goddamn people in the world for us to control, this world is doomed, let’s have fun while we’re here and not fuck up the party for others. Cheers.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
Pilid: I cannot say I disagree with most of what you have said. But where I differ with your views is on the point of enforcement against v/s prevention of drugs. In my view, drugs are no different from murder. Criminal or not, they are sinful. And they have the potential to wreak havoc on children. And whereas the argument that it is one’s individual responsibility sounds right, it has to be said that individuals do not exercise the right judgment at all times. And this is all the window that an addictive substance needs to creep in.
Karthik: True, the same old arguments / patterns repeat. But what’s a blog without a fight!
Vernac: Thanks for calling me a cretin. Notwithstanding which I must say it is good to hear from someone who’s been there and done that. I have nothing personal against people who do drugs (though they may call me a cretin). I don’t intend to spoil their party. Rather I fear for the safety and well-being of future generations, i.e. for the prospect of cretins who would live among cokeheads.