Interesting post on reddit today. As usual this sort of debate always sparks a war of words from both sides, but some of the arguments laid down there are nicely put and I think I'd like to summarise my favourites here for later heated discussion. I am a fairly hard line libertarian for the most part I suppose, though I wouldn't call myself conservative in any way other than the fact I endorse small government and individual liberty. Without trying to take the best of both worlds, I guess I'd like to see a government based around promoting a society of cooperation and community without inpinging on important liberties such as freedom of speech (which is so often where communism falls flat on it's face).
I particularly find the idea of illegal drugs absurd. I think one should be allowed to say and do whatever they wish as long as they do not compromise others ability to do the same. I do not find this statement to be a 'cop out'. There are many areas where total freedom to do as we wish would damage others social freedom - one example of this would be climate change - I don't consider someone to have an absolute right to have a gas guzzling car for instance. Drugs on the other hand are a completely different issue - and here's why: Every externality that drugs lead to are already illegal! Sure, some drugs may lead to violence and thats why we have laws against physical abuse. Using the logic of those who condemn drugs, we should make alcohol illegal, advertising of any remotely harmful product illegal, football matches should be illegal, short skirts should be illegal, in fact if you want to take away negative effects on society you should start banning any activity which reduces peoples productivity - maybe video games, mobiles and tv? The difference between drugs and other crimes is simple. Violence, for example, has a direct damaging effect on anothers freedom, drugs 'might' lead to an infringement of anothers freedom. If we start making all these 'mights' unlawful, where do we stop? It's a frankly scary and endless road towards complete control of peoples lives.
Having said this I'm not against regulation. Areas such as gun crime in the US is a prime example of where proper regulation of these 'mights' are very important. The idea that anyone could go and buy a machine gun is horrifying to say the least.
Governments, in my opinion, are there to decide the way forward on large scale issues which cannot be decided on an individual level. I cannot speak for the nation on whether we should join the Euro, I believe that these sorts of decisions are questions best left to our democratically elected experts (not that we can't complain when they make mistakes). Individual issues, such as whether I drink or take drugs, as long as conducted in a responsible manner are none of the governments business in my opinion. If I then go on to commit a crime because of this, sure, you trial someone on that crime, but this should not be an issue if the population are well informed and regulated in an effective way.
One may say that is easier said than done, yet it seems to work so well in other areas. We dont criminalise skirts because they incite rape? We criminalise rape. Why are drugs any different? It's not as if criminalisation actually has a great deal of effect. I havent discussed some of the positive effects of regualtion over criminalisation, I have been merely focussing on a moral standpoint. By legalising drugs, we would instantly cut the need for criminal enforcement, saving billions and remove the need for criminal organisations on the grand scale that we have now. Regulation removes dangerous cut drugs from the black market, allows better healthcare and education to be afforded to users and creates an opportunity for taxation for the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment