I'm actually not too concerned about dope, for myself; it's not going to force itself upon me. Nor am I hysterical about it; I have on occasion taken a hit on a jay that was going around, just to be sociable. However, I am very clear on the fact that it's not for me. Dope (and that of course includes alcohol) is of no use in any problem I have. There is no difficulty in my life that would be addressed in any way by my thinking even less effectively than I already do. Anyone who has ever tried to argue a drunk out of his car keys can see all the physical grace and mental acuity that it confers. It's like a (hopefully) temporary lobotomy. Beyond this, I also feel a strange, almost gothic sort of horror at the spectacle of someone choosing, apparently of his own free will, to do this to himself. Drunk or otherwise stoned people can be amusing, but my amusement at these people is based on a contempt that I'd rather not feel, and below that is the horror of the Wyrm triumphant; but there, I'm getting rather gothic myself.

One thing which I consider long overdue is a general realization of the fact that being stoned is not some form of "higher" consciousness; it's unfortunate that the word "high," with all its inappropriate connotations, was ever associated with dope. It doesn't unlock creativity, it merely deranges the ability to differentiate signal from cognitive noise. With dope as with art, I have a somewhat Philistine attitude; if you can't see it while sober, it was probably never there. If you can't draw your left hand in an accurate, realistic manner, then you are not in control of your tools and you cannot truly see that which is before your eyes.

What then of public policy? Fortunately for all concerned, especially myself, I have very little interest in telling other people what to do, so long as they're not bothering me; but this is not an absolutely unambiguous delimiter. Like most people, I've had my life threatened on the roads by DUI drivers, and I've been most unwillingly forced to concede that civilized living requires certain constraints upon the actions of others and yes, harumph, for the appearance of fairness if nothing else, even upon my own. So, happily secure in the knowledge that there is not the slightest chance that my suggestions will ever be implemented, I think that the first incident of DUI should receive a stiff fine and a stern warning. The second occurence gets ten scarring strokes on a public whipping post, and a six month revocation of the driver's license. Yes, I know; but if a punishment is not "cruel and unusual," it will make no fundamental impression on some people, and the intent here is to eliminate a public danger rather than to pursue some abstract theory of justice. I would myself greatly prefer ten lashes to a year in jail, but clearly there are many who would not, and I don't understand or trust such people. Third offense - there, I just don't know. By then the offender has demonstrated in the clearest way possible that he is not able to learn this very simple lesson, so a permanent revocation of license is obviously called for. As to whatever else might be done at this point, I really can't think of anything that strikes me as correct or appropriate, and I feel somewhat squeamish with the idea of hurting even theoretical people.

For individuals at home, as far as I'm concerned, anything from sipping Gallo to mainlining Drano is fine. Hurting yourself is not immoral, only stupid. The process of hurting yourself might involve grievous injury to friends or family, and no doubt can be quite tragic; but that is no business of the State, or of mine.

Click here to go home.