Peyote story on NPR [UPDATED, orig post 5/18]

has me thinking...

If certain drugs bring happiness to an individual (with no negative
consequences to any one), why are they illegal?

Isn't the American motto of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
enough to justify the use of happy drugs?

This isn't the first time I've considered this.

More on drug policy later...

UPDATE 1: mba has some good points in her comments. She is correct in implying the argument "with no negative consequences to anyone" is in fact a broad definition. The fault lies with me in stating such a vague phrase. There definitely needs to be a defined balance of what constitutes positive versus negative consequences. For example, if a so-called happy drug puts a financial strain on the user, I would think that this would counter-balance any positive effects of the drug itself. The smart thing to do is to go on vacation when you can afford it.

The second part of mba's comment I disagree with. I don't think today's mainstream has been taught to fear. That may be the approach of the anti-drug school of thought, but the reefer madness era has come to pass. I believe in fact that the instilling of fear of drugs has actually been counterproductive. For example, if I've been bombarded with ads (such as Above the Influence, drug money pays for terrorists, etc) stating that drug use has a negative effect, and then try them and the effect is a positive experience, the ads lose credibility with me. And I think humans have a tendency to not have a strong emotional attachment with abstract ideas like "drug money funds terrorists" (There would be more vegetarians if we watched how our hamburger was produced).

So because of the loss of credibility and lack of negative direct connections associated with drugs, I'm less likely to accept the next round of "information". This can be dangerous because perhaps the next round of information is in fact accurate. Then we have a very slippery slope.