Pursuit Of Knowledge

You are responsible for yourself, and the actions that you choose to execute. It is the responsibility of the individual to flourish as he sees fit in society, so long as his pursuits do not infringe on the rights of others. Inevitably, the pursuits of some may be less then noble, and on the whole detrimental to the pursuer. If one man's healthy pursuit becomes another man's vice, the owner of fault is the later, and the former should not be punished for pursuing his livelihood. This being said, I believe that there is a battle currently underway in our country, pitting those who advocate the pursuit of knowledge against those fearful of its consequences. Research into psychoactive drugs has long been a controversial topic in America. Breakthroughs in psychiatry, neurochemistry, and medications for life crippling diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's have been the result of researching these now illicit drugs, and our initial understanding of how the brain works chemically came from studies on Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). Other drugs, notably cocaine and heroin have had an extremely negative impact on society when used improperly and irresponsibly. Addiction can be a devastating social ill, breeding poverty and crime, but it is still not fully understood. The government's approach to preventing these problems associated with the negative aspects of drugs has been a blanket ban on any drug not approved to treat a defined medical condition. But the field of medicine is always changing. New medical conditions are being added and old ones are being removed from the category of accepted illnesses frequently. Why then, should the government ban research on materials that have shown great breakthroughs in the past, and still hold great promise for research in the future. In laying a blanket ban on these drugs, the government has denied us as a people the basic right to pursue knowledge and happiness. The government is violating our basic human rights by demonizing psychedelic drugs, and their subsequent overbearing restrictions on research into these chemicals. In fear of those who may abuse such knowledge, their actions deny those who wish to better our understanding of the human brain, and improve the quality of life for others. Historically, the government's actions are contrary to the principles our democracy has been founded on, as established by the great thinkers of our time. I plan to use selections from John Locke, William Blake, and Sigmund Freud to prove that the government is denying our natural rights to investigate a subject which holds great promise for improving the quality of life for Americans.

John Locke's principles of government as stated in The Second Treatise of Government are essential to our understanding of Government today, and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution draw directly from ideas as stated in Locke's work. Locke was quick to mention that the government was only in place to assist the people in their daily lives, not to control them. He states, "Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and employing the force of community in execution of such laws, and in the defense of the common wealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good. " (4) The implication here is two fold. The first part of the passage states that the government should have power to punish those who disobey its laws. I believe that those abusing drugs should be punished accordingly, abuse being defined as using drugs in a manor that is damaging to oneself or others. The second part of the passage states that these laws which the government has a right to enforce, all of them must be for the public good. When the government bans research on such materials, and possible benefits that may arise from them, this does not promote public wellness, but hinders it. Locke also stated, "for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many." (54) The government's response to the problems created by abuse, the War on Drugs, is a waste of tax payer's dollars, and has in its wake created a string of laws that violate our other basic human rights, while neglecting the issues that create a need for people to abuse drugs in our society in the first place. There are many instances where the war on drugs has been used to impoverish, harass, and subdue us as a people into arbitrary and irregular commands to those who have power, i.e. search and seizures, increased taxes, wire taps; all these actions may be performed without a warrant if an officer expects that drugs are involved. If further investigations were allowed to research addiction and abuse, we could irradiate the root of the problem, not trim back the tips of it. By banning research on drugs, the government bans itself from finding answers to the problems plaguing it. Despite billions of dollars in funding the war on drugs since its inception, drug abuse remains relatively the same. If this money were put into research, a tangible answer may be found to help those suffering from addiction, as well as others suffering from other ailments.

Locke strongly believed in principles of equality, and that all men are created equal. One of the key principles of Locke's arguments is his state of nature theory. Citing that there once existed a "state of perfect freedom to order their (people's) actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man, " Locke lays the foundation down upon which he builds future arguments. (4) The state of nature theory supplies us with the belief that we are free to dispose of our possessions and persons as we see fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature. Summarized, the law of nature states that what ever one puts his labor into becomes his property, as long as he does not waste it. If there are those who wish to put their time and effort into discovering the potential good of psychoactive drugs, they should not be hindered by the will of the government. Research for the good of the public is totally within the bounds of the law of nature, and should therefore not be interfered with. Locke makes his most convincing arguments when he addresses the right to property.

"God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.