Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
I have just finished listening to the Radio Free Delingpole podcast in which the host and Paul Rahe discuss drugs, society and the role of the state as a mediator between the two. Paul Rahe seemed, as elsewhere, to be arguing that the prohibition of drugs is necessary in order to promote the existence of a responsible citizenry capable of executing their civic duties.
Now, I wouldn’t for a minute want to dispute the fact that a state requires a base of responsible people able to make rational decisions. What I would want to push back against, though, is the idea that responsibility can be encouraged by reducing freedom of choice. Does it make sense for the state to say to individuals, ‘We want you to be responsible and independent, but you are absolutely not allowed to do x, y or z because they’ll make you irresponsible’? Does the notion of a responsible and independent citizenry even hold any meaning when all the ‘irresponsible’ choices have been banned?
I think the question boils down to one of trust in the fundamental wisdom of the people. This, after all, is what we rely on in democracies, and rightly so. If the state trusts people, that is, if we trust each other, enough to make decisions about the fate of our nation, shouldn’t we trust them in deciding their own fate? Why should the right to start and/or vote for a political party whose sole aim was to instigate a nuclear war be sacrosanct, but the ownership of a given plant species or chemical compound be a crime? Both actions might well put me and others around me at risk, given the right circumstances, and neither are responsible. If we don't trust each other (explicitly) to make the right choices about drugs, why do we trust each other (implicitly) to make the right choices about nuclear weapons or even economic policy?
Is political freedom intrinsically different from personal freedom, or is it special only in so far as it represents all other freedoms?
- Comment (67)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
This debate is part utilitarian (and empirical) and part about freedom. There are serious negative consequences to drug use, and different, but equally serious consequences to the drug war (corruption, crime, prostitution, overdoses). The first question, then, should be which set of consequences is worse, and by how much. I start with an assumption that, everything else being equal, society should err on the side of freedom. Then, if the negative consequences of drug use are sufficiently greater than those of criminalization, it's plausible to criminalize. But, if it's a close call, or (as I suspect) the negative consequences of criminalization are worse, de-criminalize.
If we de-criminalize, it's still possible to control drug use to some extent: age requirements, driving under the influence, licensing sellers, etc. No regime is perfect, but looking at what's happening in Mexico should give one pause.
Analogies to of drug use and speeding limits and the like are inapposite unless it is clear that we are discussing the externalities created by imposing risks on other by driving or drug use, respectively, and not freedom in and of itself. Drive as fast as you like on your own property.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
I'm not buying this, still.
Drug users continually assert- and, yes it is an assertion- that their activities are their business and theirs alone because they're the ones taking the drugs, on their own property.
Then, upon that assertion, they construct a vast portentous theory about personal freedom and liberty and the lack thereof, all because they can't legally get baked. I find this insanely dubious, as you can make the exact same sort of case about almost every government action from building codes to gun laws to file sharing- and traffic regulations.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, drug use imposes enormous social costs borne not only by the families of addicts but also by taxpayers.
Note I don't exempt legal drugs from that. Alcohol- legal, but with heavy regulation- still wrecks many lives, even after being part of society for millenia.
With that in mind, I see no reason at all- none- to think making drugs legal would solve any problem at all, and in fact I think it would make many problems worse.
No thanks. They should remain illegal.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Forgive me for making two comments back to back, but I also thought this worthy of notice.
It's interesting- and perhaps I should say typical- for an advocate of drug legalization to assign every bad thing springing from drug use to efforts to prevent drug use.
Just how would making dangerous drugs legal do anything to stop or reduce overdoses, for example?
As to that corruption, I figure the reason why the drug war is a corrupt mess is the same reason everything else the US federal government gets involved in is a corrupt mess also.
That's not good, obviously, but it isn't an argument for drug legalization either.
Dec '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady
Fred Cole:
The other difference is that driving too fast or recklessly is a form of agressing against other people. Peaceful drug possession or use is not.
Why doyouget to decide thatI'mdriving too fast or recklessly?
How doyouget that power overme?
And after all, if one doesn't like people getting killed by reckless drivers, make killing people by driving recklessly illegal. Problem solved.
The free choice to responsibly drive drunk or at NASCAR speeds on the public roads should be something every right-thinking conservative supports. So long as those who irresponsibly abuse that choice are held accountable for any harm they cause, everything will be fine. (Well, except for the dead and maimed people they leave in their wake: it's not clear how they'll come out of the deal with their rights intact.)
/sarc
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Well, there's an age old reason why these are called vices, because the short-term fun is so great that the long-term damage is often obscured. It's fine for adults to pursue their happiness so long as that pursuit doesn't impinge on others. I'm sure there are plenty of high functioning addicts of various sorts, and they are not the problem. The problem is (to adapt a recent phrase) privitizing fun and socializing the costs of the fun. If you can absorb the cost of your vice yourself, get "happy". But others should not have to bear the cost of your fun.
In short there seem to be two moral questions here: one, the libertarian one made above; and two, the social conservative one which doesn't place vice in a moral vacuum, but recognizes the truth that it is damaging to the individual even if the costs are self-contained, and that the barrier for its corrosive effects on broader society is pretty low. I think both are right. The first is for the realm of law, the second for the realm of morality.
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady
Just how would making dangerous drugs legal do anything to stop or reduce overdoses, for example?
As to that corruption, I figure the reason why the drug war is a corrupt mess is the same reason everything else the US federal government gets involved in is a corrupt mess also.
I'm not unsympathetic to your arguments, but I think there is insufficient evidence to be certain whether legalization or criminalization has greater negative consequences.
Overdoses often occur because users are unaware of the strength of their drugs (how much they have been cut). Or, they might get "hot shots" full of poison. This would not occur in a legal market.
The corruption is a direct result of the need for a lucrative criminal enterprise to be protected from the authorities. That's why there is enormous corruption in the drug trade, and virtually none in the alcohol business.
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady
Meanwhile, back in the real world, drug use imposes enormous social costs borne not only by the families of addicts but also by taxpayers.
This is the best argument for criminalization, but these costs must still be measured and balanced against the costs that criminalization itself causes.