You're progressing under the assumption that "drug-users" are branded with a scarlet D on their forehead.
Unless a person has been convicted of a drug crime 95% of the general public won't even know who they are.
There's no different environment for users than non-users in general society.
While drug users are certainly not branded, if they come out about being a drug user they will most certainly be shunned by some, especially in religiously dominated areas like Utah. More important than the shunning, though, is that they also need fear being harassed by police because someone didn't like their personal choices, and decided to report them to the drug task squads. No one has to feel unsafe when they say "Drugs are bad." On the contrary, if you're a drug user and say "Drugs shouldn't be illegal," you have to seriously consider that someone, somewhere, with some vendetta, might report you as a drug-dealing villain to the drug task squads, and as a result you could spend time in prison. Because of this, the environment for a drug user is significantly different than that of a non-user.
The problem of drug views, in America, can really be boiled down to mass propaganda, a falsely defined version of morality, and the perceived effects of drugs creating criminals, when in actuality it's the drug war that creates the criminals, and not the other way around. We're taught as children that all illegal drugs, under all circumstances, are bad. Not just
bad for health, but
immoral. News media only reports on drugs when tangible negative effects can be seen. For instance, if there is violence involved, or overdose.
Many people consider drug usage to be immoral. I feel this is a false definition of morality, as drugs are not either moral or immoral things. This is one of my biggest gripes with modern religions, is the demonization of various substances. Substances have no minds. They are not morally inclined in either direction. Arguing that drugs are immoral is much like arguing that guns are immoral, or rat poison is immoral, or... well, any other object that might possibly contain the potential for negative impacts on health. Sure, they're all capable of incredibly negative things, but
how something is used is what makes something moral, or immoral. It's not immoral to use drugs in the privacy of your own home. It
is immoral to drug someone without their permission.
It's funny, really, when you consider the implications. Modern society almost views drugs as a person; some devil that hides under the beds of our children every night. They think drugs, by themselves, are somehow capable of forcing people to do things. Illogical, really, when you consider that an addict cannot become addicted without having first
willingly tried the drug, and not just once, but multiple times. The only case where people can unwillingly become addicted to drugs is when the drugs are forced upon them. And, in this scenario, it's
still not the drugs that are immoral; it's the person forcing you to use them.
People don't understand that drugs, especially conscious-expanding drugs, can have incredibly beneficial effects. They don't see, for example, the guy that takes psilocybin mushrooms and realizes he has been living his life in the wrong way, and needs to make changes. The only people they ever hear about, from news media, are the ones that take shrooms and then go crazy and break windows and think they're taking part a role in Fight Club.
Interestingly, and on a side note, I wouldn't have become a Ron Paul convert had I never taken shrooms. Before taking shrooms I was a typical arrogant liberal. During my trip, I relived my memories from an 'outside' perspective, and I saw just how wrong I was in so many areas. This didn't
directly lead to me becoming a Libertarian. It simply opened my mind to the possibility that, hey, you know, I might just be wrong sometimes. As a result of this, when Ron Paul's message came along, I was open to hearing it. (It was also an incredibly uncomfortable trip, I might add, because it forced me to see things I simply didn't want to see.)
Note that I'm not advocating that everyone use drugs, or that there are always beneficial effects. Many people don't tolerate conscious-expanding drugs, and it can lead to incredibly
negative experiences, just as it can lead to good ones. I'm only advocating that if one chooses to do so in the privacy of their own homes, they should be allowed that choice, and they should not be considered immoral for doing so. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to be policing the bodies of every individual in America.
Much like terrorism has been espoused as something we all need constantly be afraid of, drug use has similarly been demonized. Americans have been conditioned to believe that there are ghouls under our beds. In reality, the ghouls are all out in plain sight. Maybe we'd see them if we got our heads out from under the bed? Of course, those that want to oppress civil liberties don't want us to see anything that isn't under the bed. Why? Because they can't control what isn't under the bed, and they don't care for things they can't control.
The best way to gain control of a population is to make them fear something. Just look at 9/11 and the patriot act. One major attack against America, and everyone was yearning to give up their freedoms, if just to prevent another hypothetical attack. Someone posted on these forums an interesting article a couple days ago. You are
eight times as likely to die at the hands of a police officer, than at the hands of a terrorist. So, please, can someone tell me why we're so afraid of terrorists, and
not afraid of our own police? Logic would dictate you would follow the statistics... But, then, the media isn't trying to produce logic-based assumptions, I suppose.
