Fernando Savater, Philosopher, Author, Madrid
Let us imagine that the information the public gets about cars came from two sources only: advertisements and the obituary. Advertisements, featuring ravishing young women, lovable little dogs and breathtaking landscapes, tout the fascinating heavenly realms which await us only for the price of this or that vehicle. Obituaries only mention reckless driving, mutilated bodies, broken families, hair-raising statistics, mourning and the impotent rage. In neither case do we learn about the real performance of a car, its advantages and disadvantages, and how it fares in comparison with other modes of transport. What is more, neither the advertisers, nor the writers of obituaries teach us how to drive.
All the average citizen hears of drugs is about those who advertise them (and make fabulous profits from their sale which no one can prevent and which continue to grow) and about their victims. Given the progress in our scientific 20th century, where breakthroughs in chemistry now yield more psychotropic substances than ever before (and such substances have never lacked throughout the history of humanity), it is inconceivable that we can live in a drug-free world; moreover, as we have no definite reason to suppose that we have to live completely without them, would it not make sense to seek our mentors among a group which was neither that of merchants nor that of funeral services? And shouldn't we also try to re-invent the schools which teach how to drive or how to behave?
Whilst drugs, i.e. various different substances referred to under this term, are prohibited in absolute terms, it is worth considering this question. The first and unquestionable advantage of decriminalization would to be that it would help us to familiarize ourselves with a practical discourse concerning certain substances with which we are going to have to live, in contrast to propaganda and vilification.
No sane person would suppose that the decriminalization of drugs would automatically solve all of the problems of those who today are considered their "victims;" for the simple reason that these people have problems and drugs, and not only problems because of drugs. A person who claims to get rid of all his or her problems by drinking or taking drugs is obviously immature. That said, are the doctors, politicians and educators, who blame all ills - the anxiety of self-castigation, self-destruction, notoriety, etc. - to the existence of and easy access to drugs, more mature? Is it wise to suppose that temptations of abuse must be suppressed by decree in order to learn to lead better, more fulfilled lives?
Only nonsensical people are unaware that the specific damages caused by illegal drugs today are distinct from and much more serious than those caused by legal drugs, on both the social and personal levels. For example, alcoholism is a serious problem, but is alcohol to blame for the problem? After all, alcohol is not harmful but actually beneficial for many people, including the undersigned. Do alcohol or tobacco nowadays cause problems even remotely comparable to other drugs, revenues from which to the illegal trade compromise the stability of entire countries? What sane person nowadays thinks that the problem of alcoholism would be alleviated if alcohol were prohibited, disregarding the fact that prohibition would have other harmful effects on human health and become an incredible hotbed of potential gangsterism, not to mention the infringement on individual freedoms such a measure would constitute for non-alcoholic imbibers of alcohol.
Whether drugs are prohibited or decriminalized, human beings will continue to behave as they do, given the problems faced by individuals and societies. But the decriminalization of drugs would at least do away with those problems which arise directly from this ineffectual and unfair measure: those which are of most concern for us today. Instead of restating the obvious, we should start asking seriously how this necessary step should be taken.
