John Stossel's recent article, "Legalize All Drugs" only addresses minute problems at the tip of the drug criminalization iceberg. He only disproves three simple falsehoods: heroine and cocaine have permanent effects, crack is highly addictive, and drugs cause crime. These are merely misconceptions; they do not concern the immoral and vicious nature of drug criminalization. Identifying these fallacies as the problems with drug criminalization is like identifying ill mustache fashion sense as the problem with Hitler. Stossel only makes one baby step towards drug criminalization's immoral core when he states that "in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves." Drug criminalization deserves a more serious attack because it is a serious vice.
Though Stossel's statement approaches the moral implications of drug criminalization, it has a disturbing element. Using the word "should" and saying, "in a free country" implies that the government gives its citizens rights. The fact is rights are natural; therefore, they are not given, they are inherent in every human being. The fundamental problem with drug criminalization is that it violates natural rights. Thus, the argument is not that the government should legalize drugs because adults should have the right to harm themselves, but that the government is vicious to criminalize drugs because adults have the right to harm themselves.
Man has the natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. These are objective rights, though I will not prove them here. That is a topic for another time. Since man has these natural rights, he may exercise so long as he does not violate others' natural rights. If one man violates the natural rights of another, he is initiating force because he is the first to use violence. Therefore, the man who responds to this first use of violence is not initiating force, he is only defending himself. For example, Adam tries to murder Bill, but Bill responds by killing Adam. The vicious individual is Adam because he initiated force against Bill; he tried to violate Bill's natural rights. The virtuous individual is Bill because he did not initiate force against Adam; he did not try to violate Adam's natural rights. Bill only used violence against Adam to protect his own natural rights. This is defense force.
Drug use and distribution does not violate any individual's natural rights; these acts do not initiate force. Of course, some will argue that drug users and distributors do initiate force by stealing and killing. However, it is the acts of thievery and murder that are initiations of force, not using and distributing drugs. For example, neither shipping milk nor drinking milk is an initiation of force. Even if a milk shipper murders his competition and a milk drinker steals money to buy milk, shipping and drinking milk are still not initiations of force. It is killing and stealing that violates natural rights, not shipping and drinking or distributing and using.
Therefore, when the government criminalizes drugs it must act viciously and contradict its own purpose. Government's purpose is to protect individuals' natural rights, meaning the government must use force against initiators of force. For example, when the government arrests murderers and thieves it uses force — involuntary captivity — against violators of natural rights. In those circumstances the government is using defense force and acting virtuously. Basically, the government is acting similarly to Bill in the previous example.
However,in the case of drug criminalization the government acts viciously like Adam. As already stated drug use and distribution does not initiate force. Since there are no natural rights under attack, the government cannot use defense force. The government is the first to use force; consequently, it is the government that violates natural rights by criminalizing drugs.
Furthermore, the government contradicts its own purpose by criminalizing drugs. Once again, the government's purpose is to protect natural rights. However, by criminalizing drugs the government must initiate force, must violate others' natural rights.
Though I do agree with Stossel's article, it misses all of this completely. He argues drug criminalization is incorrect because of its mischaracterization of drugs. Thus, he suggests that if heroine and cocaine had permanent effects, crack was highly addictive, and drugs caused crime, then drug criminalization would be fine. The fact is, even if these falsehoods were true, drug criminalization would still be vicious because it would still violate others' natural rights and still contradict the government's purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment