I want to expand on my previous post about why I’m voting for Jonathan Makeley for governor of New York.
Because if there is one issue in Makeley’s campaign that really stands out to me, it is this:
Drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.
And this isn’t just some random policy position I picked up because I happened to find a third-party candidate I like.
This shit is personal.
I lost my friend Connor to drugs.
And when you lose somebody you care about because of drugs, you don’t just look at the situation and go, “Well, drugs are bad.”
You start thinking about the entire system surrounding drugs.
How did this happen?
How did somebody get access to the substance that ultimately killed him?
What could have been done differently?
What could have prevented it?
What could have gotten somebody help before things reached that point?
And yes, the person who sold the drugs was eventually put away.
But honestly?
That doesn’t make me feel like the system did everything it could have done.
Because by the time the dealer was prosecuted, Connor was already dead.
And that’s what bothers me.
Punishing somebody after someone dies is not the same thing as preventing the death from happening in the first place.
That’s why when I see a candidate talking about drugs as a public-health and social problem, rather than treating the entire conversation as simply “legalize everything” versus “lock everybody up,” I pay attention.
That’s what I see in Jonathan Makeley’s platform.
Makeley explicitly calls for a comprehensive approach to alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs that includes education, prevention, addiction treatment, mental health care, cessation programs, stronger restrictions on sales, and reducing the commercial presence of industries that profit from these products. His campaign also calls for stronger enforcement against illicit drug trafficking and continuing efforts to address the opioid crisis. New York Prohibition
And the national Prohibition Party’s platform takes a similar approach, describing alcohol and other recreational drugs as both personal and broader social/public-health issues and calling for restrictions on advertising, stronger controls on outlets, addiction rehabilitation, and other measures. Prohibition Party
And honestly?
I agree with a lot of that.
I think all of this shit needs to be regulated.
Heavily regulated.
And before somebody misunderstands me, let me make something clear.
I’m not saying that every person who drinks alcohol or uses some substance is a terrible person.
I’m not saying that the government should be controlling every aspect of people’s personal lives.
If somebody wants to make a personal decision about what they do with their own body in their own private life, I believe people should have a significant degree of personal autonomy.
People should be able to make choices for themselves.
But here’s where I draw the line:
Personal choice does not mean there should be an unrestricted commercial industry built around selling potentially harmful substances to as many people as possible.
Those are two different things.
And I think our society sometimes gets those concepts mixed up.
We can believe people should have personal autonomy while ALSO believing that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to aggressively market harmful substances, that products should be heavily regulated, that access should have reasonable restrictions, and that the government has a legitimate responsibility to protect the public from preventable harm.
That’s where I am.
And personally?
I’m really not into drugs, alcohol, or tobacco.
Like, at all.
I drink maybe very, very rarely, and even when I do, I don’t drink much.
And honestly, a lot of the time I just look at this stuff and think:
What’s the point?
To me, it’s kind of a waste of time.
There are so many things I’d rather do with my time than get drunk, get high, or sit around smoking.
That’s just me.
If somebody else feels differently, that’s their personal decision.
But I’m also allowed to look at these substances and say, “Yeah, this isn’t something I want in my life.”
And I think that personal perspective is part of why this issue resonates with me politically.
Because I don’t see alcohol, tobacco, and drugs as harmless little recreational products.
They can have consequences far beyond the person consuming them.
And tobacco is probably one of the clearest examples.
If somebody smokes, it’s not necessarily only affecting the smoker.
Other people can be exposed to the smoke.
The CDC states that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, and that even brief exposure can cause harm. Secondhand smoke is associated with coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer in adults, as well as serious health problems for children. CDC
And that’s exactly why I have a problem with the argument that this is always purely an individual’s personal choice.
Because once your choice starts affecting somebody else who didn’t choose it, we’re talking about something bigger.
And it isn’t only secondhand smoke.
There are also concerns about exposure to tobacco smoke and its residues in environments where other people live and spend time. The CDC notes that smoke can spread through homes and even between apartment units, and that simply smoking in another room doesn’t eliminate exposure. CDC
That’s why I support smoke-free spaces.
That’s why I support restrictions on tobacco sales.
That’s why I support stronger regulation of tobacco products.
And that’s why I don’t have a problem with the government saying, “No, you don’t get to expose everyone else to your smoke just because you chose to smoke.”
That’s not authoritarianism.
That’s recognizing that your personal choices can sometimes have external consequences.
And the same general principle applies to alcohol.
If you drink at home and nobody else is affected, that’s one thing.
But what happens when somebody gets behind the wheel?
What happens when someone becomes violent?
What happens when somebody’s drinking contributes to domestic abuse?
What happens when somebody’s addiction destroys their finances, their relationships, or their health?
What happens when children grow up in a household where alcohol abuse is constantly present?
Those aren’t purely individual consequences anymore.
They’re societal consequences.
And that’s precisely why I think government has a legitimate role here.
Not necessarily to tell every individual, “You aren’t allowed to make that choice.”
But to say:
We’re going to regulate the industry.
We’re going to regulate advertising.
We’re going to restrict sales.
We’re going to prevent impaired driving.
We’re going to fund treatment.
We’re going to educate people.
We’re going to make cessation resources available.
We’re going to protect people who didn’t choose to be exposed to the consequences.
That’s the kind of approach I want.
And this is another reason Makeley’s platform stands out to me.
His campaign isn’t simply saying, “Drugs are bad.”
It calls for expanded education and prevention, addiction treatment, mental health care, cessation programs, increased restrictions on harmful products, and reducing the commercial presence of the alcohol, tobacco, and other drug industries. It also proposes ending state support for the alcohol industry and increasing alcohol taxes to address the public costs associated with alcohol-related harms. New York Prohibition
The campaign also specifically opposes New York’s commercial recreational marijuana system and calls for working toward ending commercial sales while addressing marijuana as a public-health issue. New York Prohibition
And I know some people are going to look at that and say:
“That’s extreme.”
Okay.
That’s your opinion.
But for me, after losing Connor, this isn’t an abstract political debate.
When I hear politicians talk about drugs, I don’t just hear statistics.
I think about my friend.
I think about the fact that somebody I cared about is gone.
And I think about whether we as a society are doing enough before somebody dies.
That’s the part that matters to me.
Because I don’t want the only response to addiction to be punishment.
I want prevention.
I want treatment.
I want mental health care.
I want education.
I want people to have access to help.
I want stronger action against people who traffic dangerous drugs.
And I want industries that make money from harmful substances to have to answer for the consequences of what they’re selling.
That’s why Makeley’s position on this issue resonates with me so strongly.
And again, I’m not saying I agree with everything Jonathan Makeley believes.
I already talked about that in my previous post.
I strongly disagree with the Prohibition Party on abortion.
I strongly disagree with its pro-military orientation.
There are other things where I have disagreements or qualifications.
But politics isn’t about finding a human being whose brain contains a perfect copy of my own political beliefs.
It is about looking at what candidates actually stand for and deciding which positions matter to you.
And this particular issue matters a lot to me.
Because I’ve seen what happens when drugs go wrong.
I’ve lost somebody because of it.
And I don’t want to pretend that the answer is simply, “Well, people make their own choices.”
Yes.
People make their own choices.
But corporations make choices too.
Industries make choices.
Governments make choices.
Communities make choices.
And those choices affect other people.
So yes, I believe in personal responsibility.
But I also believe in collective responsibility.
And I believe we can have both.
You can believe someone has autonomy over their own life while also believing that society should heavily regulate industries selling substances that can cause addiction, disease, death, impaired driving, violence, environmental exposure, and other harms.
You can support somebody’s right to make their own decisions while still saying:
“We’re going to put some damn guardrails around this.”
That’s where I stand.
And that’s why, when I look at Jonathan Makeley’s campaign, the issue of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco isn’t some minor footnote for me.
It’s one of the biggest reasons I’m voting for him.
Because this isn’t theoretical to me.
I’ve already lost someone.
And if we can prevent even one more family from experiencing that kind of loss, then I believe it’s worth taking this issue seriously.