He uses the example of marijuana, stating that it is not dangerous and addictive, but on the other hand, how a drug such as speed or heroin is extremely addictive and have caused many deaths.
It may be useful to take a look at other cultures which have adopted the legal drug policies that Vidal speaks of in his essay. A well known and common example is the city of Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, which has had a legal drug policy for several years. In the Dutch drug policy, drugs are divided into two categories: "hard drugs" (such as heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine) and "soft drugs" (such as hash, marijuana, fungus). When Vidal speaks of labeling drugs, we could take these categories into consideration, especially when considering how descriptive a label must be for "hard drugs" as compared to "soft drugs".
Vidal insists that Americans recall that the United States was the birthplace of a free people. This would lead us to believe that people within our country should enjoy certain liberties that enhance their lifestyle, as long as those liberties do not disturb the rights of their fellow citizens or hinder the operation of the government. This is one of Mr. Vidal's stronger arguments. Freedom is always a point of controversy whenever a group of citizens believes that they are being denied their constitutionally granted rights. For example, our constitutional right to bear arms has frequently and recently been a point of controversy. In Vidal's essay, it is not a question of whether our constitutional right to be free Americans means we should be allowed to do what we want, but rather whether we are harming our society to a greater extent with the current drug prohibitions than we would be if there were no such laws.
It is true that a good majority of the U.S. population would turn down ideas like those of Mr. Vidal. The illegality of drugs in America tends to show that there is a current and stable problem with drug usage.
