Mason Students for Liberty hand out brownies on 4/20. Photo by Ramy Zabarah
When people are given brownies on April 20, they may be curious as to what the brownies really contain.
Even though there were no “special” ingredients in the Ghirardelli brownies that the Mason Students for Liberty handed out in the Johnson Center on Wednesday, the Mason Students for Liberty had a special message to get across to students as they passed out free treats.
“The brownies are kind of an irony to bring people in because it is 4/20 and people familiar with 4/20 will maybe have a greater understanding of the war on drugs,” said senior individualized study major Terra Strong, president of ML.
ML partnered with the Students for a Sensible Drug Policy to run the third annual Dare to Resist the War on Drugs event. Since drugs are going to continue to exist regardless of legality, through legalization, reliable businesses would be supported with a safe product as opposed to supporting criminals who produce a questionable product. The event was meant to inform students about the corruption and failures of the war on drugs and to call for an end to the prohibition of drugs.
“We want to make students aware of the failure of the war on drugs and to realize it’s up to the individuals to choose to use drugs and that it’s not the governments,” said junior economics major Alex Willruth, president-elect of ML.
Students passed by the kiosk with many different reactions.
“Everyone has been really supportive,” Strong said.
“We want people to have a place to go and talk about individual rights, limited government and that government has no right to interfere in your life,” Willruth said.
ML holds events throughout the year, educating the Mason community about their rights and the government’s influence on them.
9 Comments
Video of the event. http://www.gmu.edu/org/liberty/past.html
Video of the event. http://www.gmu.edu/org/liberty/past.html
“We want people to have a place to go and talk about individual rights, limited government and that government has no right to interfere in your life,” Willruth said.
Yeah…except for when something bad happens to you, right?
And by “drugs” do you mean marijuana?…there are dangerous things out there that shouldn’t be legal. And if drugs become legal, more people will be using it, more people will be addicted and spending money on something they don’t need, etc. There’s more to life than getting high.
Kayley,
Even Time acknowledges studies showing that with decriminialization of drugs, usage goes down. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
Also, a significant point of our event is that drugs are going to continue to exist, even if they are outlawed. Since drugs are outlawed, those who society deems as less moral, generally have a way of getting fuding to support their criminal activities.
Realisticly step back and think about it: (People are going to use drugs regardless of legality) So, when disagreements arise, these drug cartels certainly can’t go to courty for disputes, and thus violence errupts. Gangs are created, weapons are used to settle disputes, that with legality, could would have settled in court!
Look into the drug war in Mexico. It has had terrible effects that could end, through legalization. Reason.tv also has a great peice discussing how the war on drugs impacts children. http://reason.tv/video/show/law-enforcement-against-prohib
“Time acknowledges a study showing that with decriminialization of drugs, usage went down.”
http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
Alaska already tried to legalize marijuana and usage went up. Same thing in other countries. It’s just common sense.
“Also, a significant point of our event is that drugs are going to continue to exist, even if they are outlawed.”
There’s already so many campaigns against smoking or drinking and driving, etc. Do we need another addictive substance easily available? Smoking weed isn’t even necessary–it’s a hobby. There’s so many other things to do and learn in life, so why waste time and money getting high? (If it’s for a legitimate medical reason, I can understand…)
“There is more to life than trying to dictate the moral actions of your neighbor.”
But it won’t get me in jail.
Also, what my “neighbors” do can affect other people around them. No man is an island.
Let’s look at the issue this way: You and I both want to see society be as prosperious and happy as possible.
In this situation you want to see a society lessened of the crimes that illegal drugs bring, as well as a reduction of the terrible results of addictions, such as alcoholism. I whole-heartedly want to see that result as well.
My argument is that if you consider that war on drugs actually causes the rise in crimes that you now see associated with drugs. Regardless of legality, drugs continue to exist (even with the millions that we contiue to spend combating drugs.) Since drugs are against the law, only those willing to go against the law to sell drugs begin to prosper. (They now make the majority of the money and do not pay taxes either.)
As these individuals continue to find a market to sell illegal drugs, they continue to grow richer. As they grow richer, they have to worry more about being attacked by others, without having an outlet of law to protect their propery. Therefore, there arises the gangs and violence.
If legalized, these inviduals would never have the funding that would allow the violence to escalate. Furthermore, consider your mentioning of jail. How is sending someone to jail, who is at the point of resorting to drugs, a good idea? All this does is waste tax payer money to dictate the morality of a “hobby”, while throwing someone who has commited a crime on a defined morality in with criminals.
In your words, “no man is an island”. These peoples’ morals and actions certainly wear on these indivuals while in jail. This does not benefit the individual or the society, rather it grows the problem and pulls the person even further into poverty and poor position. While on the reverse (going by your statistics posted), a 20 percent rise is usage arises, but no one is jailed, violence and gangs lose their funding, and individuals are left free to choose what actions to take in their life.
I do agree that there is “more to life than getting high.” I personally don’t do drugs and wouldn’t recommend anyone else to use them. However, we don’t regulate television use, even though there is “more to life” than watching television. People have the right to be unproductive, and people have the right to make mistakes, as long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of anyone else. It’s not up to you, or me, to tell people what they aren’t allowed to eat, drink, or smoke. It’s not up to you, or me, to force people to make good productive choices.
Why lock people up for doing something which doesn’t harm anyone else but themselves? Obviously, it should never be legal for someone to drink and drive, or smoke pot and drive, but that is a completely separate issue.
All peaceful actions should be legal, period.
“People have the right to be unproductive, and people have the right to make mistakes, as long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of anyone else. It’s not up to you, or me, to tell people what they aren’t allowed to eat, drink, or smoke. It’s not up to you, or me, to force people to make good productive choices.”
So by your reasoning if someone wanted to kill himself you shouldn’t say anything or try to stop him? I mean, it’s his life, and as long as he doesn’t hurt anyone…
It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t say anything to try and stop him, just that you can’t FORCE him to stop.
As I said before, “I personally don’t do drugs and wouldn’t recommend anyone else to use them.” You can recommend or try to persuade people that they are making bad choices, but you can’t FORCE them not to make them.
FORCE and persuasion are very different things.