![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
Here are three arguments in favor of the legalization of drugs.
Below, I will argue that it is in the public interest that drugs be legalized. But first, I want to be clear that even if it were not in the public interest, drugs should still be legalized for reasons of liberty.
Should people be legally obligated to do what's best for the community? Or do people have individual freedom (defined here as the right to control their own lives provided that they don't hurt others).
(Note that, if people have a right to freedom, then the argument that you shouldn't let people do drugs because maybe they'll drive doesn't work. If you are free, then you have a right to do drugs as long as you don't drive while intoxicated).
Now, are drugs in the public interest? Below, I will argue that they aren't as unhealthy as sometimes thought. However, heath is only one component of the public interest. Here, I will argue that making drugs illegal delegitimizes the law.
The existence of laws which are not supported by a significant proportion of citizens breeds disrespect for the
A significant minority of the public is OK with people doing drugs, and covertly permits and even encourages them to do so. When people see that so many people are OK with breaking the law, the public perception of the law is changed. Instead of seeing the law as a set of rules which are written and supported by your community, people begin to see the law as some weird bureaucratic obstacle to be subverted, or possibly as laws written by some enemy faction of the community which is oppressing you.
The effects of this are harder to measure than health, but there is some scientific evidence that suggests that it's possible that sanctioning breaking the law in one case may lead people to break the law in other ways, too (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1161405).
Granted, a majority of citizens seem to support the current laws; but the proportional strength of the opposition is substantial also. Perhaps if we lived in a society which only forbade things with the agreement of 66% of the population, rather than 50%, there would be less crime (clearly, if less things were illegal, there would be less "crime", but I mean that there might also be less breaking of the laws which remained in place in both cases, for instance theft).
Todo
Todo
