I’ve never written anything like this before, so I hope it’s clear enough what I’m trying to say.
I think that prohibition of non-physically-addictive drugs is wrong, and that hard drugs should be decriminalised and their users properly treated. I think prohibition is harmful to our society, doing more damage than drugs ever can.
Of course this is an old argument; it tends to turn into a debate about the particular health effects of specific drugs. For the sake of this discussion, it would be best to exclude arguments of self-harm; there are several reasons for this:
Because of the social acceptance of nicotine and alcohol we obviously accept a certain level of self-harm in our substance use, arguing whether or not specific drugs meet the standard of acceptable harm is unlikely to be productive.
Many of those in the political establishment who support prohibition are towards the liberal end. These people would not be able to justify their views without a clear argument for harm to others.
Even those who are more conservative may find it hard to justify imprisonment for possession without an argument for harm to others.
But drugs do cause harm to others, drugs are probably the leading cause of crime. Because users may be addicted, there is no way for them to finance their habit without stealing.
Not all drugs are physically addictive, in other words the “withdrawal” from soft drugs (excluding nicotine) is purely psychological, and would most likely not be enough of a problem for the user to force them to commit acts which they would usually see as immoral, for example robbery. Prohibition itself is a cause of crime. Production and distribution of certain drugs cannot take place on a small scale. Prohibition allows this black market to be exploited by organised criminals. This black market creates problems for everyone. The reason some drug addicts may have to steal is because they cannot afford their drug. But why are drugs so expensive? The answer is that because drugs are sold on the black market and mostly trafficked by organised criminals, they are protected from market forces. Prices for drugs are artificially inflated by prohibition, making it a more attractive prospect for Columbian coca growers, Afghani poppy growers, traffickers and street-dealers, bit there are also problems for the users. Because there is little competition and unscrupulous dealers of hard drugs can get clients addicted at a discount, they force them to pay extortionate prices, forcing them into crime, or in women’s case, prostitution. Proper regulation of production and distribution of soft drugs would eliminate the organised-criminal element here. Regulated supply and treatment for addicts of hard drugs would eliminate lots of street-crime, robbery and illegal prostitution. In the case of soft drugs (by my definition: non-physically-addictive drugs and nicotine), competition would likely drive down prices, but less dramatically than for hard drugs, which are harder for criminals to produce and distribute without getting caught.
This would increase the likelihood of kids being able to get hold of drugs
Kids aren’t considered individuals under law, and so are not considered to have the right to self-harm to the extent that adults do. Most would agree it’s not acceptable for young kids to have access to drugs. In the case of soft drugs, are there any that kids can’t already afford? In the case of ecstasy, cannabis, acid and mushrooms, they probably can. The people selling these drugs to young kids aren’t likely going to ask for ID. I think that it would be harder for kids to get drugs in a system of regulated distribution than it is with our present black market system.
But addicts of hard drugs become a taxpayer liability, they are unable to hold a job, function in society. This is a form of harm.
This is why I accept that physically addictive drugs (cocaine, heroin, speed ect.) should be decriminalised instead of legalised and proper treatment enforced for addicts. Being an addict does remove the capacity to function as an individual, and I believe it’s justified to remove their right to self harm here. I think morally, tobacco should be in the same category, but it’s not viable with such a large number of addicts.
Drugs harm everyone because we pay for medical treatment for health damage caused by drugs.
We accept the massive tax burden of paying for liver transplants, dialysis and lung cancer patients for two reasons. Alcohol and tobacco are nearly universally socially accepted, we wouldn’t like to know that our friends and family may die if the NHS started to refuse of provide treatment for alcohol poisoning or lung cancer, and they couldn’t afford private. We also accept this because of sales tax. Drugs that have a detrimental effect on health are not taxed. We still pay for the treatment of users through the NHS.
Use of any drug removes the capacity to be a productive individual, addictive or not.
Perhaps, if we all stopped drinking, smoking and participating in other dangerous activities we would have a much more productive society. We usually accept that there is a right to do what we want on our own time, for instance getting as drunk as we want on the weekend. You might say that drug use will inevitably interfere during work hours. Well how much productivity is lost due to cig and coffee breaks, as well as sick days due to hangovers? It’s just as unlikely for someone to come to work high, as it is for someone to come to work drunk.
Soft drugs always lead onto hard drugs, which you accept cause harm to others through the inability of their users to support themselves.
Despite the obvious scientific flaws pointed out in the “gateway theory” by research, the fact that if distribution was regulated, hard drugs would become unavailable through the same sources as soft drugs would usually stop this progression. Physical addiction (except nicotine) would be viewed under law as a mental or physical illness, treatment, but not free supply for addictive drugs would be available through the health service. This would allow the police to easily eliminate illegal supply, and addicts would be forced to sign up for treatment, or go without.
So in my opinion use of soft drugs does no harm to others, prohibition is unjustifiable on liberal grounds. I think adults should be able to buy and sell non-physically-addictive drugs as they please. If I am correct, then it’s clear to see for most people, that prohibition is an outdated authoritarian injustice.