I have a friend who used to say "err on the side of freedom." If, considering two options, one option restricts freedom and the other is more free, we should all want to choose the second! (I am assuming, in this hypothetical, that neither of the options allow people to harm other people.)

Right now, I'm thinking about the issue of drug legalization. Maybe, (and I really want to emphasize the word 'maybe'), the fact that drugs are illegal saves a few lives. But it also restricts a person's freedom to do with his own body what he chooses. There's no disputing the fact that legalizing drugs is a freer option than delegalizing them. So what concerns regarding drug legalization need to be discussed? What false assumptions need to be put to rest (or, at least, considered with regards to valildity)?

Assumption 1: People using drugs will harm other people.
My opinion: This is a fallacy.
Proof: Traditional logic says that if I can find one counter-example to a statement, then the statement is false. Counter-example to assumption 1: Johnny used drugs and did not harm any other person. So, by way of contradiction, assumption 1 is false.
I am not saying that people under the influence of drugs are not capable of harming others; I am simply saying that harm inflicted upon other people is not a necessary co-requisite to drug use.

Assumption 2: People using drugs are not responsible for their own actions.
My opinion: This is not true. Or rather, in our legal system, this should not be true. A person under the influence of any drug/s should always be held accountable for the other illegal things they do. If a driver kills a person while under the influence of, say, cocaine, s/he should be charged with DUI (or otherwise irresponsible behavior while under the influence) and with manslaughter. He should not, however, be charged with cocaine usage. He killed someone; the drug didn't. While drugs may facilitate such irresponsible behavior as described above, they do not require it.

Assumption 3: Illegalization is a deterent.
My opinion: For some individuals, it is; for others, it isn't. I know people who would drink turpentine if they thought it were an alcoholic beverage, but will not consider doing marijuana, simply because it is illegal. On the other hand, I know people who will do whatever drug you put in front of them, legal or no. Also consider our country's reaction to prohibition in the 1920s. Alcohol consumption was declared illegal, but much of the nation still engaged in the act. So, no, illegalization is not always a deterent and will not solve our nation's so-called drug problem.

So what will? I propose the same tactic for drug control as I do for prostitution. Legalize drugs. Tax their sales. Use the tax money to a)help those who wish to escape addiction, b)reduce the instance of disease by providing clean needles, and c)lead a truthful (this means not propaganda-based) campaign to inform the public (particularly the youth) of the various side-effects of drugs.

What about the drug war? It will cease to exist. If the way to obtain drugs is through the government or through stores that sell drugs legally, the leaders of the drug war will be forced out of business.

Now, let's assume that you, the reader, disagree with all of my opinions set forth in Assumptions 1, 2, and 3. The fact still remains that the restriction of drug use through legislation offends personal freedom. Freedom is capital. Freedom is key. Freedom is a necessity.

. . . . . . . . . . . . previous

next . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

back to journal page