rcotics addiction in the late nineteenth century was up to “eight times more prevalent than now” (Duster 8). Kondracke goes on to argue that alcohol can be consumed without being intoxicated while “with drugs, intoxication is the whole idea” (284). This sentiment is echoed by Robert Peterson, who says that “any analogy to alcohol use should be to getting drunk, not to having a drink” (330). Edwin Meese posits a similar theory (286). Yet these arguments all rest on the notion of “intoxication.” Where does one draw the line between “getting drunk” and “using responsibly”? This aside, even “getting drunk” is not against the law (in itself). Sure, drunk driving and even public drunkenness are illegal, but there is no statute barring one from overindulging in alcoholic beverages. How is this any different from “getting high”? Finally, Meese explains the differential legal treatment by arguing that “alcohol has an extensive social and cultural history [and] has normally been regarded as a legal commodity” (287). By that token, slavery should have never been abolished. During most of the 1800’s, slavery had an extensive social and cultural history, and slaves had been regarded as a legal commodity. Clearly, social approbation fails as a test for ethically deciding what should and should not be legal. Essentially, nearly every theory that tries to explain in rational terms why some drugs are legal while others are not lacks substance. This is because the only difference between licit and illicit drugs is the artificial morality that resulted from historical shifts in the way Americans look at drugs and drug use. ...
