In her recent column, Sofia Ortiz-Hinojosa '11 castigated Brown marijuana users, arguing that their consumption funds gang violence in Mexico ("4/20 and the drug war," April 18). Her column incited a strong backlash from readers because no one wants to hear that the Brown community has a hand in gang violence. It is much easier to avoid self-examination and pin the blame for this violence on the U.S. government's drug policies, as a column and a letter did last week ("Letter: Pot on campus not from Mexico," April 19, and "In the drug war, keep your eyes on the real killer," April 22).
Contrary to what Ortiz-Hinojosa's critics argue, drug violence is not solely caused by bad policy. It is also caused by individual consumers prioritizing their desire for substances over the safety of those who are impacted by the drug trade. Ortiz-Hinojosa acknowledged the multiple aspects of this problem, while her critics only focused on the policy aspect of drug-related violence.
This rush to clear the Brown community of any blame for drug violence is indicative of a larger trend on campus. We refuse to acknowledge personal responsibility for the effects of our actions. Instead of individual accountability, we attribute all injustice to larger social forces, most commonly to government policies. According to this state of mind, social problems are never created by individuals who make immoral or irresponsible choices. Instead, these problems stem solely from bad legislation.
While government policies certainly contribute to drug violence, it is irresponsible to deny the consequences of our individual choices. Regardless of the merits of legalization, we currently live in a society where individual drug use often funds violent gangs. Admiral James Winnefeld, leader of the U.S. Northern Command, testified that American drug consumption provides Latin American cartels with $40 billion every year. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also notes, "our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade." The existence of the alternative policy of legalization does not absolve individual drug users of partial responsibility for funding the drug trade and the related violence that ensues.
Brown's moral blindness to the connection between individual drug use and gang violence is a symptom of a belief in the benevolence and ability of government. This reliance on policy solutions is connected to our political liberalism. The vast majority of Brown students are social liberals, and liberalism is defined by its belief in the power of government to address social problems. When Brown students identify a social problem, they immediately look to the government to fix it, a mindset that is common among liberals. We have a deeply held belief that a well-informed and rational government can devise policies that will solve all of our problems. This positive vision of government makes us overlook the key role that individual choices play in creating social problems.
Those who believe in the positive potential of government and are fixated on policy solutions to social problems are less likely to take individual responsibility for addressing these social problems. The differences in charitable giving between liberals and conservatives illustrate this point. Liberals believe in active government policies to address injustice, yet they take less personal responsibility for fighting poverty. Arthur Brooks, a former professor at Syracuse University, found that conservatives donate 30 percent more to charity than liberals, even though they earn 6 percent less. Philosophy on the proper role of government was the second most important factor in determining an individual's charitable contributions. Those who disagreed with the statement "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" donated four times as much to charity as those who agreed with the statement.
The more positively you view government, the less likely you are to take personal responsibility for addressing social problems. Brooks wrote, "If support for a policy that does not exist … substitutes for private charity, the needy are left off worse than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others." This sentiment applies to both charity and drug violence. The politically liberal Brown community believes the government alone is responsible for ending drug violence. Unfortunately, this belief prevents us from taking individual steps that would end drug violence. The most obvious such step is to stop consuming narcotics.
A belief in the positive potential of government is not inherently flawed or objectively wrong. But it comes with the negative consequence of diminishing our sense of personal responsibility for addressing social problems. It is crucial that all of those who have a positive view of government acknowledge this negative consequence and fight it by examining how their own actions contribute to social problems.
As a college community, we do not have the opportunity to instantly change American drug law. What we can do is limit our own consumption of the substances that fund violent crime. Such an action would require us to acknowledge our own moral responsibility, instead of looking to the external source of government and deflecting blame from ourselves.
Oliver Rosenbloom '13 is a history concentrator from Mill Valley, Calif. He can be reached at oliver_rosenbloom@brown.edu.
