Arguments for the prohibition of drugs

[Angrboda]

I'm not in favor of legalization where many are, but to be blunt, I really can't be arsed to muster an argument at the moment.


A common element in the arguments you have presented is that many of them are arguments from consequences, and therefore may readily miss the mark of those who consider the argument from consequences in such matters to be improper or unpersuasive.

I would, if I were so arsed, likely approach it from the fundamental premises of utilitarianism, which seems foundational in many arguments in favor of legalization. One of the core premises of utilitarianism is that individuals are rational agents (or, in other formulations, if not actual rational agents, should be treated as such), from whence follows the conclusion that the greatest good for the greatest number results from the free exercise of that ability, so long as it harm none. The nature of addiction itself puts in question the rather simplistic notion that a person may use or not use at their discretion, entirely in keeping with the principle of not interfering with agents engaged in pursuing their rational self-interest. (The human cost of addiction itself is another concern. This is likely an improper appeal to emotion, but the documentary Methadonia which I recently watched is an eloquent portrait of the nature of addiction, recovery, and the disease of chemical dependency itself. [Lilly, honey, cover your ears, dear; you didn't hear that. Disease? Must have been the wind.])

More than that, I think it's somewhat distorting to view the question solely in terms of legalization. There are few significant drugs in our society that are not the subject of legal regulation. The institution of medicine is a large part devoted to the regulation of the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are also regulated, though perhaps not as well as they should be. (And here the argument from consequences raises its head again, as we compare the cost of criminalizing the use of alcohol or tobacco relative to the ongoing costs of alcohol related traffic fatalities, health and social costs of nicotine dependence, as well as the human costs of chronic alcoholism.) I would suggest that regulation is a more appropriate frame in which to put the question, rather than the rather extreme poles of no regulation of use or strict criminalization of use. Again though, because of the effects of some of these chemicals on the brains of their users, regulation for many substance may not even be an option. (In this regard, one of the interesting questions in chemical dependency is the long term consequences of chronic use. It's speculated that continued use of some addictive substances critically alters the brain such that the person may not be able to ever return to "normal," even if they choose to discontinue the use of the drug. The cost of letting a person fall into a trap where their brain becomes locked in a state in which it can no longer experience reality as simple, open, and possessed of the normal range of lability of emotion and affect is not a cost that can be measured in terms of dead bodies, but is a real cost all the same.)