Shoul Drugs be Legalized?

Drugs are as old as time -- or at least as old as people. People have been fermenting and consuming alcohol for thousands of years. People have been growing and smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Ands people have been growing and brewing coca leaves for thousands of years. What do these things have in common? They are all mind-altering substances -- "drugs" as they are known today.

Consumption of these drugs carries with it many risks, starting with addiction. In addition, the use of many drugs carries with it risks to physical and mental health. Cocaine can cause strokes(ref), sugar can lead to diabetes(ref) and ecstasy can damage the brain's ability to regulate serotonin, and research with primates and rodents suggests that this damage can be long-lasting (ref). In addition, when people are on mind-altering substances, particularly hallucinogens, they may injure themselves due to the mind-altered state. For example, there's the sad case of Kaylee Muthart who gouged out her own eyes while under the influence of meth (ref).

So it's undeniable that people can be harmed by their drug use, and that is an obvious rationale for restrictions. But it raises the question: what is the proper role of government? In the United States, the proper role of government is to protect people from others -- not to protect people from themselves. Our constitutional rights were framed as protections of individuals' freedom from the government; the Bill of Rights is about what the government cannot do to us(ref).

Despite the ideals that the country was founded on, in 1920 the US ratified the 18th Amendment making the sale and purchase of "intoxicating liquors" illegal. Organized criminals saw a huge business opportunity. They knew that people would still want alcohol, even if it's illegal, and they would pay for it.(ref)  Over the 13 years of prohibition* many lives were lost in the wars between mobsters. In addition some alcohol was contaminated by other substances -- usually to cut costs. Government regulation and oversight would have likely prevented a lot of the contamination.

We see similar problems today with other addictive drugs. The aforementioned Kaylee Muthart only started using meth after she smoked marijuana that was tainted with meth. If she had been able to get marijuana legally in a market with some degree of government oversight, she would likely still have her eyes(ref). One of the failures of alcohol-prohibition was that, with production forced underground, there were increased instances of dangerous contamination (ref).

Other advantages of legalization include tax revenue and the savings resulting from reduced need for enforcement.

Not all drugs are equally harmful to their users or, more importantly, society. For example, violence is one of the common side effects of PCP use. By contrast LSD-users are less likely to harm others (ref) and actually has potential medical benefits (ref). There's no reason that questions of legalization require all-or-nothing answers. This is reflected in the situation today. Sugar and caffeine are legal. Alcohol is legal for those above age 21, and cocaine and LSD are illegal. Marijuana occupies a space inbetween; several states have legalized the drug and more are likely to follow, but it remains illegal on a federal level. One of the most common arguments in favor of legalization is that it does not generally cause harm to those who don't use it. Many drugs are generally illegal, but can be used for medical purposes. Simply put, it's possible to have different rules for different drugs.

In conclusion, not all drugs should be legalized. Those that have a high likelihood of causing users to harm others should remain illegal or restricted. But those that just cause harm to the users, whether physical or mental, no matter how little or how much, should be fully legalized.

*Prohibition was ended in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.