On Legalization

Some of you may have seen an excellent post on the issue of the legalization of drugs on Obnoxio the Clown’s blog. The article and the subsequent comments covered most of the ground on this topic. However I would like to add my own thoughts here. The reason for doing so is that the subsequent discussion raised some of the usual arguments against drug legalization that I’d like to give my own take on. I apologize in advance if any feel that I am simply restating their own arguments against these.

We might summarize the set of arguments that I am talking about as follows:

1. We do not want to create a society where the foolish are allowed or able to kill themselves just because they do foolish things (taking drugs in this case).

2. Drug abuse does actually harm other other people such as the friends, family and offspring, and thus does not only harm the drug abuser himself.

3. Legalization of drugs would cause such absolute chaos that it would destroy society.

These three are really the three central prohibitionist arguments, and they usually appear exactly in the order above. These arguments are also interesting because they also cut to the core tenets of libertarianism – namely Individual Rights and the Non-Aggression Axiom.

In response to the first argument, I simply have to agree… at least with the sentiment that is. I also desire a society where there are no senseless and unnecessary deaths, where there is no needless suffering, where people always look after their bodies and minds, so forth and so on. The question is whether I have the right to do whatever I deem necessary to “correct” the world. Can I take away freedom and choice just to prevent an individual from harming themselves, or is that inherently morally wrong?

Furthermore, if one really believes in this argument, then why is it restricted to the drugs debate? There are all manner of threats to personal health around us that we undertake by our choice and affect only us. Why not widen prohibition to include things like rock climbing, abseiling, hang-gliding, and other “extreme sports”? Are they not foolish activities that can get you killed. Where is the consistency in this argument?

This is the point of principle that pertains to this argument. Either we agree to Individual Rights and the Non-Aggression Axiom or we agree to the notion that our lives are ruled and controlled for the benefit of the “greater good”. If we accept freedom as libertarianism defines it, then we accept responsibility for our actions, and we also accept that the actions of others may not always be to our liking. One may believe that taking away freedom in order to prevent people from harming themselves will, on the whole, improve the world. I think that it will do more to generally mutilate the world.

There are two points of practicality that go with this. Firstly, what legal measures will produce a society where foolish people never kill themselves? The existing measures have utterly failed – plenty of stupid people kill themselves by doing stupid things, including drug taking, each year. We already live a society that the first argument rails against. We could have even more legislation. I fear that we’ll be living under a very brutal totalitarian regime before much progress is made. The second point of practicality comes about when prohibitionists then argue that removing drug laws would increase the number of fools that die from taking drugs and that this would push the number to far too unacceptable levels. Well what number is acceptable (I do hope this is not some arbitrary number)? Surely the only acceptable number is zero. No one would argue that it is something that one could ever achieve.

Let us now consider the second argument. I don’t doubt the fact that the crapping up of drug abuser’s lives causes much hurt amongst their friends or family. However this is not harm in the sense of being force or fraud. As it not actually harm in the legally meaningful sense (as libertarians see it), we have no business in prohibiting drugs on these grounds. Furthermore since it is not harm in the legally meaningful sense, this second argument is simply poorly founded. Again this is a matter of principle – either one accepts the Non-Aggression Axiom or one does not.

The practical point that accompanies this is to consider the fact that families go through all sorts of trouble and grief due to the consequences of non-prohibited behaviour. Alcoholism is a good example of this, as is problems brought on by smoking and obesity. Where is consistency amongst the prohibitionists? We allow families to sort out their own problems without state interference in these cases, why not in this one?

I will not dwell too long on the third argument. I would just ask those reading this to consider whether they really believe this or whether they will just see it for the scare-mongering that it is. As many have pointed out (incl. Obo and DK), Portugal has had decriminalization since 2001 and there has been no apocalypse of the kind invoked by this argument. Not even an increase in drug use in fact. What precisely do those who use this argument expect us to think or imagine? At times I get the impression that we’re expected to imagine a sort of zombie holocaust scenario. You know, with the few remaining normal people blazing away with shotguns and assault rifles behind makeshift barracades while hordes of “users” come at them from every doorway and side street.

Goodness that sounds like too much fun for this evil scientist.