by Connor Storey
The question about drugs is really a question of: Do you have a right to your
own life? Unlike most crimes drug consumption is a victimless crime. There is
both a buyer and a seller which trade with one other, voluntarily. As long as
you’re not putting others at risk it should be legal for the adult population
to consume drugs, if they wish. Just to clarify, I don’t believe it’s in
anyone’s self interest to take drugs but I also have no right to use force
against another individual who decides to. There also should be some
restrictions placed on drugs when decriminalised. For example, there should be
laws about driving under the influence - since you’re a threat to other
peoples’ lives. However, if a person decides to take drugs in the comfort of
their own home who should prevent them?
In the beginning of the 1920s until the early 1930s, the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages. The prohibition of alcohol was an experiment intended to reduce crime; improve health and hygiene in America. On the contrary, it had the opposite effects of its original intentions. In the short term the consumption of alcohol declined but started to increase again over time and more deaths arose both directly and indirectly. For example, alcohol poisoning increased over this time period, since there was still demand for alcohol and the sellers of alcohol operated within the black market - without the government’s knowledge of their existence. Also, the prohibition of alcohol gave rise to the American Mafia creating gangsters like Al Capone. The war on drugs protects the same people the government is trying to combat.
Adam Smith, known as the founder of economics, wrote about the idea of an invisible hand. The individuals following their own separate, self interests are led by an invisible hand to promote a public interest. The opposite is also true. People who are led to serve the social interest are led by an indivisible hand to promote a private interest. That’s the case with the war on drugs: the government effectively protects the drug cartels from competitors and as a result these cartels provide low quality, unsafe drugs at a high market price. If all drugs were decriminalised, you would starve the oxygen of gangs to exist and companies would be incentivised to create safer illegal drugs. You would also see companies dedicated to help people come off of drugs. Take tobacco as an example. One of the most damaging elements of tobacco is that it produces tar or carbon monoxide and as a result electronic cigarettes have been created for people that want to stop smoking.
One common argument for the prohibition of drugs is that it discourages drug consumption which often leads to addiction and death. However, the person arguing that position is suggesting that we should restrict our ability to make our own decisions. If you were to take that argument to an extreme, you could make a case to arrest every person in the country that is obese. Everyone knows that overeating is unhealthy for you, but not everything that is wrong should be illegal. A government that tells you what you cannot consume is a government that would feel justified to restrict what you can say, and ultimately what you can think. Whether drugs should be decriminalised comes down to what sort of environment you want to live in. Do you want a government that would give you the freedom to choose, or would you prefer to live in a totalitarian state where the state knows best?
 |
| Adam Smith |
In the beginning of the 1920s until the early 1930s, the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages. The prohibition of alcohol was an experiment intended to reduce crime; improve health and hygiene in America. On the contrary, it had the opposite effects of its original intentions. In the short term the consumption of alcohol declined but started to increase again over time and more deaths arose both directly and indirectly. For example, alcohol poisoning increased over this time period, since there was still demand for alcohol and the sellers of alcohol operated within the black market - without the government’s knowledge of their existence. Also, the prohibition of alcohol gave rise to the American Mafia creating gangsters like Al Capone. The war on drugs protects the same people the government is trying to combat.
Adam Smith, known as the founder of economics, wrote about the idea of an invisible hand. The individuals following their own separate, self interests are led by an invisible hand to promote a public interest. The opposite is also true. People who are led to serve the social interest are led by an indivisible hand to promote a private interest. That’s the case with the war on drugs: the government effectively protects the drug cartels from competitors and as a result these cartels provide low quality, unsafe drugs at a high market price. If all drugs were decriminalised, you would starve the oxygen of gangs to exist and companies would be incentivised to create safer illegal drugs. You would also see companies dedicated to help people come off of drugs. Take tobacco as an example. One of the most damaging elements of tobacco is that it produces tar or carbon monoxide and as a result electronic cigarettes have been created for people that want to stop smoking.
One common argument for the prohibition of drugs is that it discourages drug consumption which often leads to addiction and death. However, the person arguing that position is suggesting that we should restrict our ability to make our own decisions. If you were to take that argument to an extreme, you could make a case to arrest every person in the country that is obese. Everyone knows that overeating is unhealthy for you, but not everything that is wrong should be illegal. A government that tells you what you cannot consume is a government that would feel justified to restrict what you can say, and ultimately what you can think. Whether drugs should be decriminalised comes down to what sort of environment you want to live in. Do you want a government that would give you the freedom to choose, or would you prefer to live in a totalitarian state where the state knows best?
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.