With stolen goods, illegal weapons and child pornography, the law is clear: the user is as guilty as the supplier. The police didn't let Gary Glitter off with a little rap on the knuckles and the rest of us didn't shake our heads and say: “Poor Gary, how sad that he has fallen victim to these evil porn dealers.”
He was prosecuted, quite rightly, on the basis that those who provide the market for child porn are implicated in its production. So why then do such different attitudes persist in the case of drugs? If it is wrong to produce and trade drugs, then it is equally wrong to use them.
Clark goes on explain that drug addiction doesn’t happen to intelligent people:
…Among drug users and drug peddlers alike, there are, of course, sometimes mitigating circumstances. If you have been brought up by drug addicts, beaten and abused, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise if you grow up with a somewhat confused sense of right and wrong.
But none of this applies to George Michael, who is intelligent enough to know that taking crack is not just an issue of personal liberty: there is a clear association between use of the drug and propensity to commit violent crime. If caught with illegal drugs he should be treated to no less a punishment than if he had smuggled them into the country and sold them on the streets.
Dude, chill out. No one wants to spend $250,000 imprisoning a guy for $20 worth of dope. I’m sure you had fun writing this, but do you actually agree with your own idea? Did you know that it costs money to keep people in jail? If you hate drug users so much, do you really want to pay for all their food and clothes and healthcare for 10 years every time we catch one? No you don’t, so shut up before we lock George Michael in your pantry and make you take care him forever.