Gore Vidal

In his essay "Drugs," Gore Vidal proposes that all illegal drugs in the US should be legalized. He supports his proposal with three main points. First, Vidal proposes that legalizing dru Enter away message text here.gs enables the people their constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness. Second, it will cure the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. Third, prohibition of drugs will be a failure just like the prohibition of alcohol in the past. Although Vidal's main points seem like the general key necessary to stop the drug problem in this country, his proposal is ultimately blunt, only ideal and not well thought of.

Vidal supports his proposal with three main points. First, he claims that the prohibition of these drugs is a violation of the constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness. "Drug prohibition protects addicts from themselves by exerting parental control over their behavior" (Cussen). The government should not have the right to take happiness away from anyone as long as they do not infringe anyone else's right to life or their property. Second, he observes that legalizing drugs will take away its title of being a "forbidden fruit." People always want what they can't have. Legalizing drugs enable people easier access to them, taking away the thrill of getting them. In the Philippines, alcohol is accessible to everyone but the hype of drinking it is nowhere as big as it is here in the US. Secondly, the "forbidden fruit" effect can yield the potency effect. Because drugs are illegal, manufacturers compete to create the best form of drugs for higher value. "It was in the best interests of the sellers to carry more potent forms" of drugs (Cussen). Third, he argues that the prohibition of drugs, like that of alcohol in the 1920's, will be a failure. The only thing the prohibition did was "launch the greatest crime wave in the country's history" (Gore). So why should the second time around any different? With better weapons and more organized criminals, the crime wave should be a tsunami compared to the ripples back in the 20's.

However, key objections can be raised to each of Vidal's three main points. First, when Vidal claims that prohibition of drugs is a violation of the constitutional right to happiness, he does not consider the fact that some people do anything to pursue this right to happiness. This pursuit can and will cause harm to other people. Other people end up paying the consequences. Just because something makes a person happy, does not make it right. The pursuit to a person's happiness can be very dangerous. Also, just because it is a "constitutional right" does not mean there are no boundaries. People can't walk around naked in public just because it makes them happy. People get arrested for indecent exposure even though they did not physically harm anybody. Another good example is the right to free speech. Try saying the "N" word to a crowd of black people, or yell "bomb" on an airplane. Second, though Vidal says that legalizing drugs will take away its title of being a "forbidden fruit," one can argue that there are already many people out there that are addicted to drugs. They don't view it as a forbidden fruit anymore but as a "staple to their livelihoods" (Doggett). Legalizing drugs will easily erect a new "crack epidemic" in this century. The legalization of drugs will install them as a routine part of people's lives. Also, just because something