There are many injustices in the world today, and many anomalies in the law of the land.  Fortunately, there are those who dedicate time and effort to righting wrongs.  Change is a natural state of affairs, but it takes effort and energy to influence change in the right direction. Some individuals are motivated by personal gain, but fortunately most simply want to help create a better world.  There is growing momentum today for the legalisation of recreational drugs.  Would this make the world a better place, or life more comfortable for the few?

The consensus is that hard drugs are one of the biggest problems facing society today, but when it comes to 'soft' drugs opinions start to differ.  Looking in the newspapers for the facts, however, you first have to plough through disclosures by middle-aged politicians of irrelevant activities at long-gone student parties. 

The arguments in favour of legalising soft drugs for recreational purposes seem vaguely negative: they are not addictive, they do no harm, they are no worse than cigarettes and alcohol, people do it anyway, and it is impossible to police ~ none of which seems particularly relevant.  The drugs might not be physically addictive, but we can all become emotionally addicted to an experience; can we be sure that there is nothing similar to the side effects discovered after decades of cigarette smoking; alcohol kills brain cells and damages organs, and so if anything we should be reducing the incidence of alcohol rather than opening the door on drugs.  And if the police choose not to go looking for drugs in private houses, at least they have the option of prosecution in the more severe cases they encounter.

It would be more helpful if debate widened to look at long term social change.  Smoking is becoming increasingly marginalised, and perhaps alcohol could be next.  Certainly, we no longer tolerate drinking and driving; alcohol is banned from more and more sporting events; and we are contemptuous of loutish drunken behaviour.  Legalising soft drugs would be a contrary step.  It would also be a step against major religious beliefs.  To actively go against current law, social trends and spiritual teaching needs careful thought, and evidence to support a change in the law is hard to uncover. 

Also conspicuous by its absence is comment on the link between soft and hard drugs.  Have serious addicts always started with the hard stuff, or did they drift that way after becoming bored with soft drugs?  Human nature being what it is, we tend to dissatisfaction.  We always want more.  Maslow talked about the status quo never acting as a motivator; a salary raise this month is wonderful, but in three months time we take it for granted.  The excitement we might get from a soft drug is fine, but we want to go on experiencing those kicks, and sooner or later we want bigger kicks.  The connection between soft and hard drugs needs to be better researched before we risk opening a Pandora's Box.

And what about the bigger picture?  Do we want a society where stress is such that we need chemical assistance to cope?  Do we want our ability to entertain ourselves to continue to atrophy?  Is this 'better world' that we are creating to consist of artificially stimulated virtual excitement?  A hard day at the office; a funeral; a party ~ do we want recreational drugs to turn all these days into uniformly happy days?

Even if the law should be changed, if this is one of those wrongs waiting to be righted, should it stand high on the list of priorities?  Those who are prepared to give their time and energy to this questionable cause would be well advised to think about the better world they would create.