Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Drugs, legalisation of
Section E. Social, moral and religious
The legalisation of drugs has long been an important issue, but in recent years, it has taken on a global dimension. ’Plan Colombia’, a scheme to encourage lawful enterprises in Colombia, has largely defeated the drug cartels in that country, but at the same time Mexico has collapsed into lawlessness at the hands of gangs. As well as the general debate about legalising all drugs, debates may arise about legalising specific drugs, or about more creative policies such as the legalisation of drugs within certain areas.
Pros
[1] The role of legislation is to protect society from harm, but not to protect people from themselves. We do not legislate against fatty foods or lack of exercise, both of which have serious health implications. The individual’s freedom is paramount unless serious harm is done by a particular act. Taking soft drugs does not harm anybody else and has only minimal negative effects on the person taking them — it is a ’victimless crime’. As such, it should not be a crime at all.
[2] Individuals should be left to choose their own lifestyle and priorities. If that includes using drugs for pleasure and relaxation, then that is a perfectly valid decision.
[3] The law is currently inconsistent. Cannabis and speed have comparable physical and mental effects to those of alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs. If anything, alcohol and tobacco have more seriously damaging effects. Tobacco-related diseases kill millions each year, and alcohol is responsible for deaths on the road, civil disorder and domestic violence on a huge scale. Cannabis and speed make people ’spaced out’ or hyperactive, respectively, for short periods in social situations and are relatively harmless. If alcohol and tobacco are legal, then soft drugs should be too.
[4] Legalisation allows for the creation of regulated environments in which drugs can be sold and taken; this has manifold benefits. First, it means that the state can monitor what goes into drugs, so that they are not ’cut’ with more harmful substances (such as, for instance, crushed glass which dealers often mix with cocaine). Second, it means that drug addiction can be treated as a medical rather than a legal issue, and so addicts can get better help and support; needle exchanges for heroin users, for instance, can be very helpful. Third, it allows the state to make tax revenue from drugs, to recoup the costs of any social damage that is done.
[5] Legalising drugs breaks the power of drug cartels that are destroying states around the world. Gangs have become so powerful in Mexico that they effectively have overrun law enforcement and large swathes of local government, forming their own private militias; they are funded and sustained in this by their monopoly on supply lines of drugs into the USA, which can only pass through criminal gangs because drugs are illegal.
Cons
[1] It is right that governments should legislate in a way that overrides personal freedom to protect people from themselves as well as from each other. That is why bareknuckle boxing is banned and seatbelts are compulsory in some countries (e.g. Britain).These are ways in which personal freedom is overridden by legislation designed to protect personal safety. Soft drugs are harmful; cannabis smoke (as well as the tobacco with which it is often mixed) is carcinogenic, and prolonged cannabis smoking has been shown to cause brain damage and significant loss of motivation and short-term memory. Amphetamines interfere with the nervous system in a potentially damaging way.
Drug-takers also put others at risk by taking mind-altering substances that can lead to unpredictable and dangerous behaviour.
[2] The government should provide moral leadership as well as legislating to protect the health of the individual and the safety of others. The drug-using lifestyle is a shallow, hedonistic, apathetic, inwardlooking, uncreative form of escapism. Governments should legislate and speak out against drugs to discourage young people from this lifestyle and encourage them to engage in healthier and more creative pastimes.
[3] The effects of soft drugs may be ’comparable’ with those of alcohol and tobacco, but there are important differences. Cannabis and speed are mindaltering in a way that alcohol and tobacco are not. The fact that harmful and dangerous substances (tobacco and alcohol) are already, regrettably, socially entrenched is not a good reason to allow two more such substances to become more widely used and socially acceptable.
[4] Regulation can control for certain effects of drugs, but ultimately it cannot side-step the central problem, which is that drugs are harmful. Rather than being facilitated in their addictions, individuals should be discouraged from ever using drugs, and the state should do whatever it can to stop them getting involved, especially as softer drugs can act as a ’gateway’ to harder ones, exposing young people to the huge harm of a heroin or crack addiction.
[5] Even if illegality helps to explain the power of drug gangs, there is no evidence that legalisation would in fact help to weaken them. Now that they have such power, there is no reason to believe that they will give it up without a fight. Moreover, legalising drugs prevents both national governments and the international community taking a strong law enforcement stance against drug gangs, because they no longer have a mandate to punish them unless they can catch them doing other illegal activities.
Possible motions
This House would legalise all drugs.
This House believes that drug taking is a matter of individual choice.
This House believes that the solution to Mexico’s drug problem is legalisation.
Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Alcohol, prohibition of
Smoking, banning of