IF DRUGS ARE SO HARMFUL, WHY DO WE NEED LEGISLATION?

Why do moralists at the Sun think they have the right to validate
themselves by invalidating others as subhuman and criminals for
choosing social drugs?

What difference does the name of the drug make?

It is plain editors at the Sun are so blinded by moral righteousness
they can no longer tell the difference between crime and vice, if they
ever could.

Let me share what one of the most respected 19th-century jurists,
Lysander Spooner, wrote in 1875, before the designation of drugs as
medical or criminal was ever thought of.

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of
another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search
after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward
others, and no interference with their persons or property.... Unless
this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized
by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right,
liberty, or property...."

If drugs are so harmful, why do we need legislation?

Chris Buors

(Excellent letter. But we fail to follow the logic of your final
argument. For instance, "if impaired driving is so dangerous, why do
we need legislation...." Kind of obvious, we thought.)