Government lacks the authority to prohibit the selling and usage of drugs and this is the reason why drugs should be legalised including harmful ones.
In political discussions focusing on the harm aspect of drugs takes the discussion from a principled discussion to a pragmatic discussion. Pragmatism is to accept wrong hoping that good may result.
Accepting that government may protect us from harm is to argue in support of nanny-state-ism and to accept that our relationship to government is similar to an adult-child relationship.
Acting beyond legitimate authority is to act unjustly.
It is unjust to punish others for using drugs.
It is unjust to punish others for buying drugs.
It is unjust to punish others for selling drugs.
Excellent post, Reed!
I’ve been wanting you to present a concise précis of your position on drug legislation and this looks to be it. Thank you. 🙂
What was that you were muttering about not being a libertarian? 😉
I agree. Likewise, government lacks the authority to regulate the selling and usage of drugs and this is the reason why drugs shouldn’t be regulated including safe ones.
Our other co-blogger, Tim, has been pouring scorn on my criticisms of the Psychoactive Substances Act. He must really love Nanny State and her regulations! 😛
It wasn’t clear but I was meaning to include regulations. Regulations are actually prohibitive – if government defines the one way they will allow something they are really prohibiting all other ways.
Great minds think alike.
This is totally anecdotal, and specific to my context as a teacher and therefore may not be relevant for the “in principle” argument. A couple of years ago there were dealers at the local train station selling drugs to the school kids in the mornings. From an emotive and protective (for the students I interact with daily) point of view, I find the final proposition (“It is unjust to punish others for selling drugs.”) problematic. My moral sense of these sellers, dealing to these young students, is that they must be hindered from doing so. Would it be envisaged that the community would shame and dissuade such activity through free acts of parents and care givers within the citizenry? Thoughts? I hope I’m making sense 🙂
WWJD? He’d respond to your questions with further questions!
In a truly free society, would the problem even exist in the first place?
In the real world, what was the solution to the problem? (I presume the dealers aren’t at the train station anymore. Where did they go? Did they get on the train?!)
Wayne
It would be just to punish others for selling drugs to children but the justification would be the fact that it is being done to children.
In the same way if there was some person coming to your school trying to sell sex to the children then punishing the person would be justified. But it wouldn’t justify making sex illegal.
It is unjust to punish others for selling sex.
It is unjust to punish others for selling drugs.
It’s interesting that you appealed to protecting children…
Thanks heaps for your thoughts and clarification Richard and Reed. Much appreciated! 🙂
An important point here is how ‘deadly’ is heroin, say compared with alcohol? Both can kill in overdose, heroin perhaps a bit more risky in this regard but alcohol much more dangerous in most other ways.. However our current prohibitionist regime has made heroin many times more lethal than it would be under a legal or’ more legal’ regime. There are several provable reasons why this is so. Rather than consider powers of governments and libertarian ideology, the simple matter that prohibition makes drugs much much more dangerous, or dangerous when they weren’t to start with is a good enough reason to abandon this system.
BTW: Haven’t been to this site for quite a while. Utterly surprised to see that you still believe there is a “god” and a non-existant person called “jesus” is important to you.