Begging the Question on Drug Prohibition

As I often used to say: I hate alcoholics - they give us drunks a bad name. And so it is with other drugs. The vast majority who use them responsibly and in moderation are defamed by the small minority who can't control themselves.

My support for drug legalisation is based largely on the belief that the harm resulting from prohibiting drugs generally outweighs the harm resulting from their legal availability. The counterargument tends to rest on one principle: That keeping drugs illegal will not stop some people, but it prevents much larger amounts of people from trying them and becoming addicted. The assumption is that for these people, the illegality of a drug is the main barrier to trying and using it. It is a view that is reinforced by an addict like Robert Moore, who claims to have used Kronic "...because it was legal. I'm 23, but I kept thinking, 'I don't think the Government's just going to let me become this way'. The fact they were legal, and the availability - that's what drove it."

I have to say that I think Mr Moore's explanation sounds fishy, and, if genuine, betrays a distinct lack of intelligence and sound reasoning belying his University education. I do wonder if his sudden appearance in the media represents machinations of the Colin Craigs and Maxim Institutes of this world...

But lets assume that it is genuine. How many people actually think this way? It's hard to tell. But my guess would be that the answer is - very few. The argument resonates with people not because they are all itching to try cannabis, or methamphetamine, and feel they need a law to constrain them from such wanton decadence, but because they suspect that everyone else feels that way. They personally, of course, have much more self control, and would never smoke P, even if it were legal. It's everyone else that they are worried about.

The problem with that argument is that "everyone else" is, in general, equally assured about their own abilities to exercise self-control. Real Robert Moores - those for whom the legality of a substance is an important sanction, are a rare minority. And this is borne out in countries like Portugal, and the Netherlands, which have a degree of drug legalisation. Use of the drugs legalised/decriminalised either stayed static, or even declined.

Should drugs stay illegal for this small minority? There is a case to be made that these people would cause harm to society at large, increasing the harm that addicts unconcerned with legality already inflict. But the reality is that any such increase in harm would be outweighed by the sudden lack of crime from addicts who could not hitherto afford the extortionate price that prohibition places upon substances.