The war on drugs versus the case for liberalisation.

Authors Avatar

Introduction

A high controversial issue, of significance importance, is non other but the prohibition of psychotropic substances and the justifiability of drug laws which applied in many countries. From the era of the American Colonies until the era of Civil War, colonists, including the eminent champion of individual freedom George Washington, grew “hemp” in their premises. Nowadays, “hemp” is referred to as “marijuana”. Yet, only few people can realize that hemp, opium poppy and coca are ordinary plants and far fewer people can realize that by the transformation of those plants into dangerous and prohibited drugs we may give up fundamental rights. The proposition of a right to use psychotropic substances of one’s own choice has been advocated by economists in favour of free markets, by philosophers on grounds of liberty rights and autonomy and by journalists on “consequentialist grounds of harm-minimization”.

The declaration of a war on drugs can only be recognized as a war against individuals, since drugs cannot be arrested, prosecuted or punished. As a result, an estimate five million regular users of illegal substances in UK must face a civil war. A war, in which according to Douglas Husak, the enemy and the special significance of the enemy is not adequately identified. The material area of drug use and human rights remains “sacredly” undiscovered as only in rare occasions is expressly mentioned; it is mentioned once in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988. On the one hand while governments fight the jihad against drugs in order to eliminate the enemy, they legalize certain drugs such as alcohol, caffeine and nicotine. On the other hand Muslims, and Mexican Indians, who disapproved alcohol consumption on culture and religious grounds but favour the use of cannabis and opium, they are stigmatized as a world devoid of poverty and sin.  

In order to explore further the question whether or not a right to the freedom to use drugs must be recognised, this essay purports to analyze the issue of drug use in relation to liberal societies, the contemporary drugs use with the risky and harmful effects, the rights of drugs users which may be jeopardised and especially whether drugs can be seen as an autonomous activity.

Drug Use in Liberal Society

According to J. S. Mill, a liberal society is shaped from the belief that individuals have a right to “live as seems good to themselves”. As a result, one may elect to carry out dangerous activities under the allegation that he will endanger only himself. Such risky activities, that an adult has a right to do, may include motor racing, sky diving, horse riding and boxing. Mutatis mutandis one can assert a similar action regarding the consumption of unhealthy substances; alcohol, tobacco.

        

No one can criticize a boxer who fights with enormous strength or a sky diver who at the 3500ft is surrounded with ecstasy while he is sinking back to the ground. A potential prohibition of such activities may infringe fundamental individual rights and transform the individual into a slave in his own given liberty. For example, if the USA Government prohibits the exhibitions of the World Wrestling Entertainment, with millions fans worldwide, they will face severe criticism not only from the supporters but especially from the wrestlers of the Federation. As a result, under the scheme of a liberal society, it can be broadly argued that the right to use dangerous psychotropic substances is an appliance of the right to do dangerous things to oneself.  At this point, it is very important to emphasize that the right to use dangerous drugs is joined by with the responsibility that the harm must not exceed to others.

Eric Goode in Moral Panics identified that an unreasonable and socially unacceptable behaviour makes sense if viewed through a specific conceptual lens. Consequently, when one faces the question of “why do so many of us become fearful of and concerned by seeming threats that are less harmful or dangerous than others”  he may be faced with the offer of why not. It is commonly accepted that rationality and reasonableness is bound by culture. As a result there is an uncertainty of which culture framework can adequately inform us that one assertion is true and another false. Nevertheless, Paul Smith argued in Drugs, Morality and the Law that although someone may be entitled to the moral right to use drugs, the assumption that drug use is morally correct cannot be justified adequately. At instance, everyone have the moral right to do an immoral thing; throw away clothes but never give to charity.

Considering the maxim of liberal societies and the fact that adults are entitled to the right to engage in dangerous activities, without causing harm to others, it could be argued that adults must have a right to the freedom to use drugs. As Mill noted, “liberty maximizes happiness”. This thesis can be successfully assessed taking into account that individual freedom can be seen as the main reason of individual happiness under which many benefits derive for others. It is common accepted that during the Golden Age of Periklis in ancient Athens, when individual’s freedom and liberty composed the structure of democracy, there was a profound development in all aspects of society; economy, education and culture. In addition, a contractualist argument which favours the maxim of liberal societies is that people do not live with the same values of life, due to the different beliefs and cultures, but they agree on the principle of liberty to live in line with the self-judgement of what is good. For example, no one can be forced to live according to others’ religion beliefs or sexual preferences that are not their own.

Join now!

Present Day Drugs Use and Human Rights

As we stated above, very little has been written about drugs use and human rights. It could be argued that the current public opinion against drug use is a product of the falsely and unjustifiable beliefs in relation to the effects and consequences of drugs in line with their risks, harms and benefits. As a result, it could be more orthodox, for a critical assessment, to concentrate on the benefits and harms of drugs, on the economic impact of illicit drug use, and finally on the drug use as feature of privacy ...

This is a preview of the whole essay