Legalising Drugs? Part Two

The things were, though, not so easy as they seemed at first. Some problems, I saw fairly fast; others, only as I went deeper into Catholic thinking.

Italy isn’t an island. The freedom of movement within Europe which started in 1993 means junkies from all Southern Europe would have been tempted to move to Italy. To a junkie, drug is the very first necessity, and reason of life. Heroin on prescription, of extremely safe quality and extremely cheap, would have meant the risk of an army of junkies moving to Italy without a job or prospects, as the drugs would have been prospect enough. Being EU citizen would have given them automatic, non-discriminatory access to the national health service. Today this would, of course, apply so much more to a country like England, where smart but lazy people live at the taxpayer’s expense for a lifetime, and there is an extensive system of guaranteed “welfare”. A roof on your head, basic expenses paid, no fear of the future, first-rate medical service and cheap, safe, high-quality drugs. A junk’s definition of paradise.

Not every drug is born equal. Cocaine, for example, doesn’t really have “surrogates”. You can give a heroin addict methadone (and who knows whether he’ll be content with that) but the cocaine addict will accept no substitutes. This alone would be a market big enough to ensure the survival of a drug dealers’ net. The argument that smart legalisation wipes the industry away doesn’t wash.

Drugs (particularly cocaine, which is why it could never be legalised in the first place) can make people dangerous. You can talk a lot about a controlled environment, but in the end a drug addict will tend to have an erratic behaviour. In Italy, drogato is a word commonly used to indicate not only the actual addict, but also seriously unstable people. Ask yourself whether you want a heroin addict neighbour on methadone. In time, there would be a lot of them. Then try to criminalise drugs again, and good luck to you.

Legalisation encourages lack of self-responsibility. It sends the message that if enough idiots put themselves in a big enough problem, Big Nanny will have to intervene and make their lives easy. Not only is this an extremely bad example for an entire nation, but it produces the drug addicts it claims to eradicate. Make no mistake, if your son is a tad stupid and sees drug addicts have all the fun and a halfway normal life, he will soon draw his conclusions. With the present system your car may be at risk of breaking, but your son will be at risk of becoming a drug addict only if he is a serious moron. I know what country I would prefer to live in. With remarkable soundness, the electorate of almost all European countries see this. This is one of the few issues where political correctness flies directly out of the window. A legal junkie next door? Take a hike, Mr MP.

Legalisation is deeply immoral. The Church does not allow to consent to an evil so that another evil may be avoided. Giving drugs to a human being to feed his addiction cannot be right whatever other advantages may be expected from his action. If it is permissible to give drugs to drug addicts in order for them to avoid killing themselves with drugs, it must be permissible to give condoms to sodomites in order for them to avoid killing themselves with AIDS, or to young girls in order that they may avoid suicide following pregnancy. Actually, the latter argument could be used to justify abortion.

Whatever the advantages of a certain situation, I prefer a country that chooses to do what is right and pays the price of its convictions. If it costs more in police and jails, so be it. There is a moral dimension in our lives that cannot be seen merely in terms of material advantages. Similarly, on attentive reflection the idea that a country may fight criminality by distributing to its citizens those very same poisons that it considers so bad as to make the distribution of them a serious criminal offence reveals itself as logically self-defeating, besides being morally untenable.

On the same vein, I prefer a country that calls people to pay for their own idiocy. Small idiocy, small price; big idiocy, big price. Self responsibility is the salt of life. Unless one learns this lesson one cannot call himself an adult, merely a very heavy baby. God believes in self-responsibility to the point of condemning to an eternity in hell, but some people cannot even accept drug addicts are responsible for their own addiction. One wonders.

To throw oneself from the bridge and then to expect Super Nanny to fly to the rescue whilst one is in mid-air because one didn’t know how gravity works – but thought flying is great fun! – isn’t really how it’s going to work. Rather, it is fitting that the one who chooses to throw himself from the bridge reaps what he has sown and smashes into the ground; the fathers will then lead their own sons to the bridge and show to them the trajectory and the destination. Highly educative, I assure you. In the Papal States, fathers led their sons to executions, that they may see what happens to criminals. Smart fathers, they were.

In the case of the drug addict, of course, things aren’t so brutal. The smashing into the ground happens very slowly, and the possibility of saving oneself in mid-air is still given, if one really wants to – operative words here are “if one really wants to” – .  But I am sure you get my drift.

These, my dear and very patient reader, are the reasons why yours truly is on the side of the Bishop of Rome, at least in this matter. Notice, though, that on this occasion it is not yours truly who is being progressive, but rather the above-mentioned Bishop of Rome who is being, semel in anno, conservative.


Posted on July 26, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. Bravo! Thank you for formulating my thoughts for me. We already see how legalization in the Netherlands has turned out. But your broader point, as a Catholic hit home for me. I truly believe that if the Church doesn’t become, once more, the city on the hill, we will have lost the culture. It would be better to die standing on our feet, decrying the sin and evil that so beset us, than to sleep in our beds, indifferent to the consequences of wickedness and its bitter harvest of souls in hell.

  2. felicitasperpetua

    Finally, some good news about the Pope!
    Thank you for a very clear-headed and rational argument of the decriminalization issue. This brings to mind another sort of opiate. A rational argument only makes sense to a mind that has been detoxed from the mind altering we all get in the course of schooling and daily life. This ideological dope has become popular with most members of the Church but the traditional Catholic faith remains the only reliable antidote. I tried to make sense out of the world through a haze of modern mental models and kept on running into dead ends. Reality contradicted these false models at every turn, and the world looked distorted, hideous, irrational and horrifying. The light of the Faith, on the other hand, sharpens your thinking and shows reality as it is: Although there is much ugliness in the world (to which we have personally contributed), everything fits into a big picture that makes sense to the last detail.

    If you want a good example illustrating the case against decriminalization, look no further than the prescription narcotic abuse epidemic in the US. Decriminalization (you’re probably starting to suspect I don’t like the “legalization” word. It is the Enemy’s buzzword) only shifts the burden of responsibility from the junkie to medical practitioners and taxpayers. As you pointed out, an addict with a taste for illicit drugs shoulders 100% of the risk and cost. On the other hand, the prescription junkie is a ruthless parasite and a bully to any doctor unfortunate enough to cross his path. He often derives a sense of entitlement based on “his pain” and he will manipulate and harass until he obtains gets his way. This sort of vermin usually goes around harassing multiple doctors (i.e., “doctor shopping”) to obtain mind boggling-quantities of prescription drugs, often financed through Nanny’s efforts. And guess who gets sued out of existence if one of these noxious critters falls victim to his own folly?

    Then there is an even worse sort of parasite that also goes around extorting large amounts of prescription drugs (using pocket money from Nanny) not for their personal use, but to sell on the street (so much for putting dealers out of business!), sometimes to finance “the good stuff” that they buy from purveyors of illicit drugs.

    Can you guess what some Nannies are doing to remedy this unfortunate situation? Asking the doctors to play police detective (at no cost to Nanny, of course) and put every single patient to whom they give any medication with a potential for abuse under scrutiny. Even if you are not a junkie or a regular user of certain medications, you will be under the microscope too. In the effort to keep a few antisocials out of prison, Nanny keeps moving the prison walls out, into everybody’s backyard. But, isn’t it nice that we have so much compassion for the junkies?


    • Ah, this “doctor bullying” wouldn’t happen in Europe, though, at least in Continental Europe.

      The “you don’t understand my pain” doesn’t work, and the doctor would kick one out very fast. In Italy you get a “family doctor” assigned and if he says no, it’s no. In England is the same. In Germany you can “shop”, but no doctor would be impressed because they have (or they had) a limited budget of drugs they can prescribe, so every junkie would be seen to be scrounging at the cost of the national health care system rather than, say, a private insurer (that would likely not pay). Rules about antidepressants and so on are very strict here.

      I liked the one with the moving the prison walls out… 😉


  3. Mund, another question that needs to be asked by the people who want to decriminalize the sale and use of now illegal drugs is: who’s going to be making the money from the sales? Answer: the same people who are doing it right now. The bankers who aid in laundering the drug profits, and the gangsters, who will become “legitimate businessmen” overnight.

    • Tha bankers are not going to do any money out of it, and to equate bankers with money launderers is as stupid as to equate taxi drivers with rapers.

      Keep this shit out of this blog.


  4. I’m actually in favor of drug legalization. Drugs, in my estimation, are in themselves not morally evil – if I’m mistaken, please correct me – but rather morally neutral, like a gun. The problem isn’t drugs but the culture that uses them. When drugs were sold over the counter in what remained of Christendom, they weren’t a problem as there remained some respect & practice of the virtues of prudence & temperance. Drug use was a problem in hedonistic cultures like China, and now so in the West as the fruits of the Spirit of Vatican II have matured. Thus, the problem isn’t drugs, and adding another band-aid doesn’t address the issue. The issue is Catholics In Name Only. Yet again, the Holy Father, is addressing the natural problem, and ignoring the supernatural problem. He is calling for action, when what is needed is Catholic Action!

    On the natural level, I side with the least interventionist approach to the problem. If the Multiculturalist Nanny State would limit itself to maintaining order, drug use wouldn’t be such an attractive option, and full responsibility would have to be born by the drug user. If the junkies decide to rob me, I defend myself, with a gun if available; and if I’m in England, I’ll just call the bobbies…

    • You are very mistaken.

      Every substance which puts a person outside of his normal state of consciousness is poisonous, and the wilful taking of it outright evil. Even drunkenness is grave matter.

      At times I wonder what has become of Christianity, if I have to read comments like this one.

      The other day a commenter asked what is wrong with tattoos. Seriously.

      We are at ground zero. It’s no surprise that persecution is coming. Christianity has become no more than a faint echo of platitudes heard somewhere.

      Browse this blog, Eustachius, and absorb from it as much as you can. Imperfect as this blog and his author are, you will find in it that strange, unknown thing called Christianity.


  5. Okay, I accept the notion that a drug that takes “a person outside of his normal state of consciousness is poisonous”, however by that definition, alcohol needs to be made illegal too. And because personal responsibility isn’t regarded very highly, we better ban guns & knifes too, so that we can’t hurt ourselves or others. Wait, lets not forget baseball bats, and screwdrivers too!

    Memo to the best & the brightest, y’all need to figure out what else we need to ban in order to protect ourselves from ourselves – soda, TV, internet, fast food, etc. It’s a slippery slope to try and protect everyone from themselves.

    I guess I shouldn’t worry if that’s the plan, as we’ve got the bobbies after all…

    Note, I’m not saying ban nothing either, but only stuff that is truly intrinsically evil – contraception, abortion, pornography, etc.

    We as humans have changed since the advent of Protestantism, and as Catholics since the Spirit of Vatican II; hence, what used to be normal is now dangerous. However, the problem is us, and making the Nanny State bigger, to protect ourselves from ourselves, isn’t the solution. The solution is Christ & His One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.

    • Eustachius. You must learn to think logically.

      Wine, and knives, are perfectly fine if used or enjoyed in the proper way.

      There is no “proper way” to “enjoy” drugs.

      The question of freedom is certainly important, but it is no coincidence Christian societies have always condemned the “freedom” of the libertarian kind.

      When I grew up, pornography (I mean true pornography) was in fact severely restricted; movies and TV shows were censored; even songs had a strict censure office that worked rather fine until the half of the Seventies.

      All perfectly normal in a Christian society.


  6. Accepted, perhaps then a distinction needs to be made as to which drugs get banned, i.e. where along the drug spectrum does it become intrinsically evil: nicotine, marijuana, opium, cocaine, heroin, etc.

    I never got past the nicotine stage, and thus couldn’t say.

    I just caution against allowing our inner Savonarola out of the box, and getting behind a Jansenistic socio-political order.

    God help us all, if we as a society put our trust in the bobbies…

    • Smoking isn’t “taking drugs”.

      When made in moderation, smoke isn’t even a sin; exactly as drinking a glass of red wine isn’t (of course, both are sins for the Nazi Nannies…).

      In sharp contrast, there has never been an accepted “recreational use” of opium, though some non-Catholics (I think, even Queen Victoria) made use of it. Put it anothe rway: you could have seen the curate with a pipe for tobacco, not with one for opium.

      Again, the wisdom of Christian societies has always told us with great accuracy where to draw the line. The problem with the modern times is that, having lost Christianity, they end us with surrogate religions (like health), hence the drive to the oppression of those poor chaps wanting to enjoy a cigar in peace…

      Even in this, the recovery of proper Christian values is the best way to recover sanity in matter of what is right or wrong, permissible or to be banned. When Christianity goes out of the window, Nazi Nanny goes in by the door; and Nazi Nanny doesn’t care two straws for your freedom, as she know much better than you what is good for you… 😉


    • Glad we got that sorted out!

%d bloggers like this: