David Warren writes about the latest Canadian statistic showing drug use doubling over the past ten years:
I'm aware that I'm writing in the newspaper in which the semi-legendary Dan Gardner wrote innumerable series of award-winning articles arguing that the legalization of drugs would put an end to all associated organized crime and make the world safe for democracy. It's one of those issues about which, even though I am a vocational pundit, I have never had an opinion. But wait for it, I'm about to come up with one.
The flaw in the libertarian argument, is that people don't need permission to misbehave. That is the part of human behaviour that comes naturally. Instead, it takes a considerable amount of repressive tradition, social stigma, and legal threat, to get anything good out of the species. And while there may be some tactical discussion of what is worth making illegal, and what is not, the idea that you can reduce crime by getting rid of laws is tautological.
In this case, the question of organized crime is tertiary. We have police to take care of that sort of thing, and if there aren't enough, then we need more.
The secondary question is: Do we want to live in a country which is a magnet for all the superannuated hippies in the USA? While the Americans progressively close the border against drug shipments passing the other way? With consequences for all the dwindling number of Canadians who do not happen to be stoned out of their wee minds? But even on this level, drug legalization would be merely an act of stupidity.
The primary question is, do we want the drug culture to become our public culture? For that is the unseen goal we now approach: in a word, Holland.
The flaw in the libertarian argument, which David points out, but doesn't identify as such, is that if recreational drugs are to be legalized, it will deprive us of the freedom to live and raise our children in a drug-free environment. This lack of thought for externalities (consequences to third parties of your actions) is perhaps the main reason why I am not a libertarian. To be fair, libertarians believe that such things can be resolved through private contracts, i.e. that we could develop drug-free neighborhoods where the inhabitants agree contractually not to use drugs. But since most cities are mostly built, such a thing is currently almost impossible. So we have to choose, which freedom do you most value?
Posted by David Boxenhorn at December 2, 2004 03:37 PMThe terrible truth is that drugs do not cause immoral behaviour.
However, drug laws do.
I'm with the libertarians on this issue.
Agree that their proposed solution of drug-free neighbourhood contracts seems silly and unworkable.
What's more important is to refute present misconceptions about drugs. And also to abolish the forcible drugging of law-abiding people.