Whitney Houston, dead aged 48 – Did she have to die? Should we legalize drugs?

When the news of singer Whitney Houston’s death broke last night, like many, I was saddened. No matter her cause of death, the grace and talent of her wonderful singing voice will be sorely missed.

Being connected through various social media as many are, I sought also to share on the matter. In only one case, what I found shocked and dismayed me. I do not shock easily, nor am I easily offended – if at all – yet that experience simultaneously dismayed and disgusted me.

I was literally aghast at the rapidity, level and quantity of such venomous and blatantly vitriolic attacks, not only against the deceased, but against anyone whom shared anything. I suppose in some regard, it was similar to being thrown in a lion’s den.

Considering that my friend might not have been aware of how others were abusing his pages, I confidentially shared with him that “While browsing around FB this evening – something I’ve not done in quite some time – I happened to remark upon a post you made, and cited John Donne‘s poem.”

In a separate venue I opined further, that “Tonight, I was reminded why I have almost wholly abandoned interaction on FaceBook. Rudeness and incivility precipitated and commingled within a flood of incendiary and caustic remarks rife with intimidation and innuendo, which frankly I thought not only in poor taste, but which were nothing short of trolling. In my estimation, such unpleasant, discourteous, primitive and uncivil behavior has reinforced my determination to almost wholly avoid FaceBook.

“Additionally, what I found remarkable was that such condescending remarks were hosted upon someone’s page and that others were unwittingly abusing the individual and their space by turning it into their abusive, defamatory, libelous and slanderous fiefdom – having in essence, hijacked or pirated another’s wall.

“Fortunately, I am happy to report that thus far, I have not found G+ to be so.”

It’s said that bad news travels fast.

And that it does.

In another venue, a news item was posted which trumpeted an old, and still bad, idea.

The idea was in a news item posted in response to her death, in which renown singer Tony Bennett called for the legalization of drugs. Legalization is not a good idea and solves no problems because it does not resolve the issue.

I continue to find the idea preposterously bad, and responded by writing, “Which makes about as much sense as legalizing crystal meth because people die from it, as well. Or heroin, or LSD. Merely legalizing something because one dies from it will neither solve, nor resolve the underlying problem… and there’s always an underlying problem. Always.”

Never in the history of humanity has there has ever been anyone whom has ever said anything remotely close to:

“The 10 years I spent smoking opium/crystal meth/crack,
or
shooting heroin/speedballs were the best years of my life.”

No, those whose lives spiral downward into social disintegration and structural decay – when they begin recovery – always report a sense of “coming to” themselves, a point at which they seemingly return to their right minds, and when they have, they share their own sense of dismay, disgust and mental, physical and spiritual decay that naturally accompanies such drugs.

One respondent added, “They want it legal, regulated, and people with addictions treated and not thrown in jail. Our approach to drugs is extremely flawed.”

I replied with, “If we used ETOH (ethanol, also known as beverage alcohol) as an example, we see there remain numerous people whom are arrested for DUI or other crimes while under its influence, and whose lives devolve further into chaos, often taking with them numerous others, family, friends and co-workers alike. Granted, our nation’s drug policy warrants serious re-examination, as does our attitude toward mental health in general. However, I must reiterate that the menace posed by the willy-nilly consumption of illicit narcotics and other substances of abuse is a genuine public health hazard, and as such, should continue to be seriously and jealously guarded to protect all of society, not just those whom are immediately involved in their consumption or abuse.” 

The cost to society is not just in lost time from work, but in the lives of others whom are touched by another’s addiction. There are costs in hospitalizations from overdoses or contaminated bad drugs. There are costs associated with the arrests, incarceration and trials of those whom abuse drugs. Yet the notion of making a thing legal, in fact, runs counter to the idea of “smaller government,” because once a thing is legalized, it is typically regulated, and the agencies and bureaus which are tasked with such oversight are myriad.

What legal thing is unregulated? It’s more simple – and arguably more cost effective – to keep a thing illegal, for then the costs associated with its maintenance, taxation and regulation are fewer and lesser, or even non-existent. Consider aspirin as an example, or perhaps even shampoo.

We do not allow certain ingredients in the manufacture of those items for good reason, primary among them is that they’re harmful or have known deleterious or even dangerous side effects. From a governmental regulatory perspective, how much more could we save if manufacturers were allowed to do as they wished? No more FDA. No more rules. That wouldn’t fly, no, not in a heart beat.

Why?

We know that the ingredients are harmful! Why then, would we – in our right minds – allow a known harmful illicit narcotic to be dispensed freely in the marketplace? Such an idea is so ludicrous as to be asinine!

One would imagine that Dr. Ron Paul, a well-known Libertarian in Republican clothing, would have similarly adopt such a tact to continue to maintain illicit drugs as such, rather than to legalize and regulate them.

Often, we would do well to consider the outcomes of our proposed actions.