Edition #17
Rio de Janeiro, 2011
“DKANDLE weaves swirling multi-colored vibrant unearthly soundscapes, blending fuzzy and reverberating Shoegaze textures, mesmerizing Dream Pop meditations, sludgy Grungey tones and moody Post-punk strains, heightened with soul-stirring lyricism and pensive emotive vocalizations”
It is a very common belief in society that drug users are the ones funding drug trafficking. The goal of this article is to prove that this is a fallacy.
Let's begin by recalling what happened in the United States with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. For moralistic reasons rooted in religious beliefs, alcoholic beverages, which until then were sold freely, were completely banned. Anyone caught selling or drinking alcohol would be sent to jail. Of course, no one stopped drinking because of the prohibition. The result? Users became marginalized, often risking their lives because of the dubious quality of the alcohol; meanwhile, the Mafia established itself, and within a short time, the number of crimes tripled. Many people were arrested simply for drinking. Many others were killed in gang wars with the police. The more alcohol was prohibited, the stronger the Mafia became, because the tighter the restriction, the more expensive the alcohol became, and consequently, the more money and weaponry the Mafias obtained. Until the government finally stopped and thought, well, it’s no use prohibiting it; we’ve spent millions of dollars on a useless war, so let's legalize it... Then, alcohol was taken out of illegality, the trafficking networks were dismantled overnight, violence dropped drastically, thousands of breadwinners started earning a living by working in breweries, and the government began to receive exorbitant amounts of money from the alcohol industry. Now answer this: who funded all the alcohol trafficking in the United States — the users or the government with its prohibition?...
Brazil was the first country in the world to prohibit the sale of marijuana. Brought from Africa by enslaved people, the plant was associated with marginality and faced significant prejudice from much of white society. In the early 20th century, along with other practices such as macumba (an Afro-Brazilian religious practice) and capoeira, marijuana was banned in Brazil. In the following years, other countries took the same stance, resulting in the prohibition of marijuana sales in most countries around the world to this day. All of this was due to the racial prejudice of men from the past, who lived in a time very different from ours. Since then, much has changed: practices like macumba and capoeira are now protected by federal laws, but when it comes to the legality of marijuana, the mindset has remained narrow.
What I see is that many people have the utopian idea that by banning drugs, access to them will be more difficult, so they won’t reach their kids as easily, and thus they feel more secure. But this sense of security is a pure illusion… The fact is that, whether prohibited or not, drugs will always be consumed. Always. There's no point in banning them, because if someone wants to try marijuana, they will try it, whether it is illegal or not. It is not its prohibition that will prevent access. In fact, users are at a much greater risk when using illegal drugs.
When someone wants to buy marijuana in the Netherlands, they go to a coffeeshop and are greeted by a paid employee, who receives vacation time and health insurance. The employee will present a menu where the customer can choose the type of marijuana they want to buy. They then pay for the product and can consume it right there, without being exposed to any kind of violence. Part of the money spent will go toward taxes and fees that benefit the state.
In Brazil, when someone wants to buy marijuana, they have to remain on the margins of society, as they are forced to get involved with drug dealers—people who often lack scruples (unless they grow it at home). Many times, Brazilian marijuana users risk their lives going up into favelas, visiting drug dens, and being vulnerable to acts of extreme violence, since they are dealing with armed criminals who are often exchanging gunfire with the police in ambushes or with other traffickers. How many innocent people have already died, and will continue to die, buying drugs in these areas? Additionally, because it is an illegal commodity, marijuana is often “laced” with ammonia and other harmful substances. If it were legalized, users would be assured they are not getting a bad deal. “Mixtures made by traffickers make drugs even more harmful” (I just heard William Bonner say this on Jornal Nacional! =P).
In addition to the fact that a user has to deal with dangerous traffickers, those who live in countries where marijuana is illegal also run the risk of being caught by the police and ending up in jail or having to negotiate their freedom through bribery, which further corrupts society (bribes that are often paid to the same police officer who also took bribes from the drug den to keep it running). The user could be giving their money to a legal organization, generating revenue for the state. But instead, due to the government's prohibition of that herb, their money unfortunately goes to further strengthen drug trafficking and police corruption. This is a loss for society and the fault of an incompetent state. In other words, the government itself prohibits and thereby creates the conditions for trafficking, and then claims that the user is the one supporting the trafficking... No! If it weren't for the prohibition, there would be no trafficking at all; therefore, it is the government, with its prohibition, that sustains the existence of trafficking!
The most sensible thing to do would be to recognize the hypocrisy of the current situation and see that trafficking is not eradicated through repression but through the legalization of the prohibited substance. With legalization, trafficking disappears, and then the government should launch educational campaigns—not the ones that preach "drugs are bad," but those that honestly show all the pros and cons, without disguise or fabrication. From that point on, it should be up to each person to decide whether to use or not (as long as they are of legal age and have sufficient intellectual discernment to know what they are doing). Everyone should be free to do what they want; each person is their own master, and no one should tell me what I should or should not do. The Dutch have a cultural attitude that says, "Do what you want, just don't bother me." I see this as the most perfect way to show respect and civility for another's free will. After all, everyone should take care of their own life (this doesn't include crack or other heavy drugs, who are in a different category and deserve another kind of treatment).
But just as alcohol was prohibited and then legalized in the U.S., the trend is that, in the near future, marijuana will also be legalized. When you think about it, it's absurd that alcohol—a much more harmful drug than marijuana—is legal, while marijuana is not. How many people commit murders, become addicted to the point of "scraping the floor," or destroying their lives because of alcohol? And yet, every night we see advertisements for alcoholic beverages during prime time TV. Meanwhile, marijuana, which leaves the user relaxed, reflective, and in a good vibe, is demonized and punishable by imprisonment. What a strange planet we live on... Stranger still is seeing people criticize marijuana use while holding a beer in their hands.
You are in favor of
legalization of drugs?
Leave a comment below
previous page: THE CHRISTIAN UTOPIA
next page: TAKING AN ET TO DOWNTOWN RIO
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MARIJUANA LEGISLATION
How the herb is treated in different countries around the world
JUST SAY "KNOW"
Timothy Leary's last campaign on drugs before his death
THE LESSON OF THE PORTUGUESE
Stopping treating users as criminals reduced consumption
