I have come to believe that if junkies are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to drug abuse in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get hooked on drugs or get others hooked on drugs.
That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed drug abuse. I opposed dope dealers. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.
Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he’s a junkie and dope dealer. He said he’d known for some time, and that his addiction wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Drug experimentation led to addiction. Now he can’t break the habit.
Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is a junkie and dope dealer but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.
Knowing that my son is an acidhead prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the drug of their choice..
I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue drug addiction as other people pursue football or hockey.
Well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of drug addiction. We should encourage acidheads to make long-term commitments to each other and build communes, so as to foster strong, stable addictions.
One way to look at it is that junkies’ desire to get high doesn’t amount to a threat but rather a tribute to social and self-destruction, and a potential source of renewed strength for tripping out.
I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of drug abuse. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience heroine, cocaine, and LSD.
Just another GOP senator in favor of legalizing currently-illegal drugs.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe Will is happy in his life of addiction, but if he says he is, I'm willing to take him at his word. We shouldn't put him in jail just because he's different. We shouldn't ostracize him, but we should be ready to help him - if and when he asks for our help. Certainly we should not pass laws restricting Will's rights to carry on his life. God knows he's got enough problems on his hands without the government giving him more problems, eh?
ReplyDeletei) My analogy involved dealers as well as users.
Deleteii) Sodomite marriage isn't just about the "couple." It's also covers adoption. So it's not limited to consenting adults. Advocates include other parties. Hence the analogy with dealers.
iii) Even if you take a libertarian view of drug use, your comparison breaks down. Libertarians think drugs should be decriminalized.
However, homosexual marriage advocates don't generally defend gay marriage on libertarian grounds. They don't merely say homosexuals should be "allowed" to marry each other. That's too weak. Rather, they say it's a human right, civil right, constitutional right.
But to the extent that there's an argument for decriminalizing drug use, it's not presumably that using cocaine, heroine, LSD, &c. is a human right or civil right. Rather, it's usually that the "war on drugs" was a failure, that it fosters organized crime/black market for drugs, or that gov't shouldn't penalize "victimless crimes and/or penalize what consenting adults do.
But that's not a civil rights or human rights argument. That's a pragmatic argument, or an argument about limited gov't.
By contrast, Portman isn't merely saying homosexual marriage should be legal, or that we should let homosexuals marry each other. Rather, he's contending for moral equivalence. He's saying sodomite marriage is good. He's saying homosexuals have a right to marry each other.