Plum Crazy

The contrariness of drug law is spelled out by Transform - the group that thinks only total decriminalisation of all drugs can stop the harm done by them. They pose a simple question: if you have a very dangerous substance, what is the best way of controlling it? Sell it over the counter (aspirins and tobacco), sell it in off-licences (alcohol), give it out in pharmacies on prescription (valium or temazepam) or give it to criminal gangs to dispense (heroin and crack)?

That's an excerpt from an editorial in the Guardian on decriminalization of drugs and a quiet plan in Britain to give addicts free prescriptions to heroin.

I think the British government is almost on to something with that plan. Their "war on drugs" has proven no more successful than our own. More and more drugs are seized every year, but the price keeps falling, indicative of a growing supply despite the higher number of seizures. Prison populations are growing due to stricter sentencing for drug use. Sounding familiar?

It is bound to be cheaper for the British government to hand out free prescriptions to addicts than to continue an expensive, failing war. This is why I think they are almost on to something. I think the plan falls down on making the drugs legally available only to addicts. Certainly that will have the effect of lowering crime, as the addicts are responsible for most of the drug-related crimes committed, in large part to feed their habit. But this still leaves too much power in the hands of the drug dealers. Addicts aren't the only market for drugs. If you're going to make drugs legally available to them, why not go all the way and simply make them legally available period? Doing so should significantly lower the costs of drugs to addicts and casual users alike, also resulting in a drop in crime. If that doesn't pan out, the government can always decide later to hand out free drugs to the addicts.

I realize many people are afraid that legalizing drugs will significantly increase the level of addiction. I believe those fears are unwarranted. How many people really don't try drugs because they are illegal as opposed to simply knowing that they are bad for them? Cigarettes are legal, yet most people don't smoke. Alcohol is legal, yet most people are not alcoholics. Experts have said that cigarettes are more addictive than hard drugs. The general argument against that is that smokers who run out of cigarettes don't lie, cheat, or steal to get another one, whereas drug addicts do. Of course, smokers don't have to lie, cheat, or steal to get another cigarette - they can simply go to a store and buy them legally or openly ask other people to give them one. Drug addicts do not have those options. It is, therefore, a faulty comparison.

Even beyond this, though, is the philosophical question of whether the government should be restricting adults from behaviors that do not infringe on the rights of others. What is the proper role of government in our lives? To my thinking, it is the role of the government to (a) provide those services that individuals cannot provide as efficiently (e.g., conduct foreign policy, provide a criminal justice system), (b) provide public goods (e.g., a military), and (c) restrict behaviors which do infringe on the rights of others (e.g., murder or theft). Under the heading of restricting behaviors which infringe on the rights of others, we should accept things like bans on public intoxication and intoxication when performing activities such as surgery or driving. Using drugs, smoking cigarettes, and drinking alcohol in private environs amongst others who consensually wish to do the same do not infringe the rights of others. Therefore it is not the business of the government to restrict them.

I commiserate with a friend of mine, though, who wishes "the libertarians would pick a more popular issue to push, as it is we seem like all we want is to be left alone to smoke pot." He can't stand the stuff. Actually, neither can I. I don't smoke, I rarely drink, and I tried drugs a couple of times when younger and hated them. Thinking something should be legal doesn't equate to wanting to do it yourself or thinking that other people should do it. I think people shouldn't smoke. I just don't think it's the business of the government to prevent them from doing it if they choose. Same with drugs.