Yes, the government's war on drugs should be stopped - absolutely. It is one of hundreds and hundreds of assaults on our freedoms by a self righteous, mothering and harassing government that is simply out of control.
This is an issue of applying the principle of individual rights, and the concern that if drugs were legalized they might "be everywhere" and "addicts skyrocket" is entirely irrelevant on that principle. Either one upholds the principle of individual rights, the corollary principle of property rights, and the notion that one's body is one's own, or we open a door to allowing any type of restriction or abuse of those principles with no standard other than the current push-me-pull-you, left vs right, arguments that attempt to predict and evaluate consequences and then use them as a standard of morality. How prevalent will drugs be if we legalize them? How many addicts will it create? Morality cannot be objective if we are allowed to bend, compromise and make exceptions to principles in accordance with some utilitarian measure of the pros and cons of each instance of the principle - even if it were possible make such evaluations with any degree of accuracy, which it is not. Objectivity is lost and you end up with mob rule subjectivism.
I would argue that politicians and pundits who defend the war on drugs while accepting legalized alcohol or even food that is bad for us, such as sugary sweets or deep fried potato chips and french fries, are pragmatists who have abandoned principles. Just as we defend someones right to vile speech, or to preach about God or make pornographic pictures, because we believe in the principle of free speech, so must we defend a person's right to consume any food, drink or drug, because we believe in the principle of property rights. We can't defend freedom while picking and choosing the freedoms we allow.
It is valid to consider what would happen after legalizing drugs, but not to factor such an evaluation into the debate over whether free individuals should be free to use them. I could make very good arguments why belief in God, elevating faith over reason and going to Church is bad for society, but I can't use those arguments to advocate for a war on faith based religion.
answered Jan 27 '11 at 00:08
Yes, any restriction of adults able to make decisions for themselves is a violation of their rights (to use their life--mind, body, property and wealth) as they best see fit. The details you are concerned about would look at whether people are "adults" or "able to make decisions for themselves." If doing something incapacitates you, well then you aren't able to do it anymore are you? But you made the choice to get yourself in that situation. Hopefully you learned an important lesson about the consequences of your actions, and will live to learn from it. Once you begin to threaten or violate the rights of anyone else to pursue their own self interests, the state is proper to step in or others whose rights might be violated have the right to defend themselves.
answered Mar 05 '11 at 09:59