Today I attended a deliberation in The Commonplace where we discussed illicit drug use in America as well as this country’s pervasive drug culture. I think the group did a fine job, but for some reason they cut the deliberation down to one hour, so it did not feel like there was sufficient time to delve into the issue and its many nuances. The group began the deliberation by questioning whether changing the legality (making harsher punishments or no punishments at all for doing or possessing drugs) would change peoples’ minds about whether or not they would do them. Most agreed “no”, as did I. A participant said that if people want to do something they would find a way to do it, and, on the flip side, if someone didn’t have a desire to do drugs, it was most likely because of personal morals or values so laws would not change this.

Option #1 than transformed into a conversation about whether or not selling drugs is a victimless crime, and if- in states like Colorado where the government sells drugs- the state is effectively a “drug dealer” and responsible for perpetrating addictions. The two side to the government-interference coin that we talked about are as follows:

1. The decriminalization of drugs (by allowing the government to control the distribution of such substances) could take away some of the mystique and excitement of doing them
2. But, if these substances were to be decriminalized or even made legal, does the government have the authority to control how or how often people consume harmful substances or should people be allowed to control their own lives despite the possible negative consequences?

This effortlessly led into option #2. The moderator began by saying how much money the government was losing out on due to drug addicts (I thought this was a good point, but lacked some tact in the way he stated the statistics). He pointed out that addicts who were not living up to their life and earning potentials were costing the government hundreds of millions in tax dollars. The two ways we discussed to lessen the number of drug addicts in our society were:

1. Raising taxes to help fund programs for convicts of drug-related charges. But someone in the group brought up a good point that I completely agree with: citizens would not be happy paying their hard-earned dollars to fund another government program that might not work to help people that are participating in an illegal activity that the taxpayer has no part of.
2. If we were to try to increase the punishments for drug users and dealers to an extreme height (as they have in countries such as Singapore where someone can be executed for smuggling drugs), should it be done gradually or very quickly, if at all?

Option #3 concentrated on drug-danger education and programs like D.A.R.E. Most people believed that these programs were not done correctly and seemed like government propaganda- not giving genuine information, instead shoving information down elementary schoolers’ throats. However, I disagree. I still remember most of my D.A.R.E. classes from when I was ten, so it must’ve had a significant and emotional affect on me. Although it is obviously a scare tactic, sometimes that is necessary for kids to remember the message, in my opinion. Something we did not discuss in this option that I wish we had was whether or not it should even be public schools’- and therefore the government’s- responsibility to educate children on the dangers of such substances or if it should be left up to individuals’ parents.

It was an interesting deliberation, but I wish we had had more time and focused more on the government’s role- or lack thereof- in matters of such substances.