Still More on Libertarianism: Drugs

[lhynard]

I might as well go on to the topic for which libertarians may well be most famous -- legalization of drugs. Most libertarians are for the legalization of drugs, whatever they are, as long as they do not harm anyone else. The view is that, if it does not harm anyone else, people in a free society should have the right to do whatever they want. This is a simplification of the issue, and I am not sure of the exact libertarian view, just that that is what they are known for. For me, as a chemist, drug is way too broad a term. Pretty much any small molecule apart from vitamins, minerals, water, carbohydrates, lipids, and protein could be considered a drug if it has some sort of affect on the body. I think the "rules" for drugs need to depend on a few different factors.

1. Is it addictive?
   Here I would take the libertarian view. All else being equal (that is, nothing else making it illegal), I think that people should be able to chose for themselves whether to be addicted to a substance or not. I would personally advice no one to become addicted, but I do not think there should be laws to prevent addictions alone. Caffeine would fall under this example.
2. Does it harm the individual?
   Again, I don't think this matters. The individual should be free to choose the harm he or she is to risk. Steroids [1] fall under this category.
3. Does it harm other people?
   If it does, the use of the drug should be forbidden in public areas, but not in private. I am very opposed to smoking in public places. I have asthma; I don't like the smell. I am also opposed to the suing of cigarette companies by people dying of lung cancer and the charging of extra taxes on cigarettes.
   What about alcohol? Alcohol can be harmful to others in the case of drunken driving, but then, it is drunken driving that is dangerous, not the alcohol itself. (This is different than cigarette smoke, where the only way to smoke is to produce the danger.) In cases where a crime is committed (such as injury caused by drunken driving), punishment should be severe and the right to whatever substance should be taken away.
4. Does it affect the mind and/or personality?
   Ordinarily, I would say that one should be able to chose whether or not he or she wants to affect his or her own mind. However, part of a government's job is to push for a certain type of society. We prefer as a nation that our citizens are educated, so we make it mandatory. It is a choice to do this for what we consider to be the best for our society. Likewise, as a society, I should think that we would not want to have all our citizens stoned all the time. That can hardly benefit the society, even if -- in the eyes of the individual -- it benefits the individual. So a compromise is needed. I personally would then be opposed to the personal use of mind-affecting drugs, unless....
5. Can it be used to help pain or health?
   I think in the case of life or death situations or objectively diagnosed conditions or intense pain that people should be able to use mind-affecting drugs. Marauana is a good example. It can be an excellent pain-killer. And if we have to ask whether sick people on marauana is good for society, I think the answer is that a pain-free citizen is better than a suffering citizen any day. So I am all for the legalization of such drugs for medical purposes. One might say that if it is legalized for pain-killing, it will encourage the drug trade because of people trying to get the stuff without a prescription. Well, that happens anyhow. Again, you cannot legislate that people will follow the rules, you can only set up punishments for those who get caught.

In all of these cases, I do think it is important for there to be a division of government that ensures proper labeling of known effects of any drugs.

And I think that about covers it.