WHY DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGALIZED: PART ONE

Illegal Drugs Should Be Legalized For A Number Of Reasons.

By illegal drugs I mean, though not exclusively, marijuana, cocaine,
heroine, acid and PCP. The main reason that they should be legalized is
that it is immoral to prohibit them. By 'legalized' I mean that drugs
should be subject to the same regulations that tobacco and alcohol are.

I think that drug prohibition is immoral and I strongly disagree with it
because it prevents people from pursuing their conception of the good
life, whether that life includes being a monk, an activist, or a
capitalist. I think that people should be able to pursue their conception
of the good life because people should be sovereign over themselves, which
is to say that people should, in a sense, own themselves and, thus, not be
subject to unnecessary political coercion.

Preventing people from using drugs says that people are not sovereign over
themselves, and are, therefore, subject to unnecessary political coercion.

Unnecessary political coercion has, in the past, had various embodiments,
some of which are controlling people's behaviour by way of not allowing
women to vote (sexism), and not granting people with particular skin
colours human rights (racism). Sexist and racist laws are a lot like drug
prohibition: preventing people from using some drugs - while allowing the
use of other drugs - by way of threat of punishment is a form of drugism.

One objection against drug prohibition is that doing drugs is bad for the
users' health, and as the government is in place to protect its citizens,
the government should, therefore, stop people from using drugs by
prohibiting drugs.

I think that this objection is misleading because, if the reason that the
government prohibits drug use is principled so that people do not hurt
themselves, then the government would have to prohibit tobacco and alcohol
use, as well. Otherwise, the government would be introducing arbitrary
laws like when people with a particular skin colour were forced, by law,
to sit at the back of city buses.

Also, if the government is prohibiting drugs in order to protect people's
health is principled and not an example of drugism, then the government
should be preventing people from overeating: we all know that overeating
causes citizens much harm. Sky diving, too, causes accidents (often
deadly!), so if the government's motivations for prohibiting drugs are
principled and not arbitrary, then sky diving and other dangerous sports
would have to be made illegal, too, in order to protect citizens health.
Fortunately, though, the government doesn't interfere with that aspect of
people's private lives.

So, it seems that the objection that drugs should be prohibited to protect
the citizens' health is a weak one.

Furthermore, and despite the law enforcement's best efforts, drug use is
common - so prohibition doesn't stop it. But what prohibition does stop is
people from getting clean and pure drugs.

Drug prohibition forces drugs onto the street where impure and unsafe
drugs are often purchased under the pretense of their being pure and safe.
The use of contaminated drugs is more likely to cause serious health
problems than the use of pure drugs is. So, if the government wants to
protect the citizens' health then, perhaps, drugs ought to be legalized so
that drugs can be subject to strict standards of purity.

Perhaps, one might object, the reason that some drugs are illegal is
because the government wants to protect innocent people from drug related
crime like violence and thievery.

I don't find this objection convincing. This objection is weak because it
does not recognize the reason that crime accompanies drugs because drugs
are illegal.

If drugs were legal gangs would not be buying, selling, and fighting over
them. I suspect that gang activity would be drastically reduced if drugs
were suddenly legalized.

Although the trade of alcohol and tobacco yield much more money than the
trade of illegal drugs, gangs do not often trade alcohol and tobacco
because those two substances are already legally available in large
quantities and, therefore, there is no incentive for them on account of
the weak profit margin.

It follows that one cannot argue that if drugs were legal gangs would
still be trading them. Gangs would not be trading them for the same
reasons that they don't trade alcohol and tobacco: because due to the
substance's higher supply and accessibility, prices of drugs would
inevitably fall and make black-market drugs especially unattractive due to
their cost and possible impureness. Crime rates, too, would fall as gangs
would not have as much to fight over. It has been estimated that over 10
000 homicides are committed each year in the USA due to drug prohibition
by way of gang violence.

Not only do I blame those deaths on the convicted murderers, but I blame
those deaths on the government for creating circumstances that nurture
such violent behaviour.

Furthermore, many of these deaths caused by gangs fighting over illegal
drugs are deaths of innocent people due to stray bullets.

While I do pity she who, on her own accord, overdoses on drugs and dies, I
have more pity for the innocent boy in Toronto a few months ago who died
in his backyard due to drug prohibition related crime.

By my value system, one has every right to do whatever one wants with
one's body, whether that be dangerous drug use, prayer, or suicide; the
alternative would be forcing people to behave against their will and akin
to slavery.

Also by my value system it is wrong that that innocent boy in Toronto died
because politicians make some drugs illegal.

Indeed, the objection against my thesis that drugs should be illegal in
order to protect the general public thus fails, as the public is being
harmed by drug prohibition. That is why I say that drug prohibition is
immoral.

I welcome objections against my argument, and check back next week for
part two of why drugs should be legal.