SYMPOSIUM: The Morally Fraught Arguments for Legalization

On some levels, I am greatly sympathetic to the arguments advanced by Mr. Bandow for ending the Drug War. When he speaks of the over 1 million people arrested a year and the violence and underground trade that leads only to death, I am reminded of the prudence of St. Thomas and nearly ready to join his cause.

However, my infatuation with this cause is always temporary. Mr. Bandow, like others, can’t stop with these reasonable sorts of arguments, but instead must advance the type of morally suspect claims that pervades all of libertarian thought and reminds us conservatives why the divide between our two camps is ever growing.

Like all libertarians, he believes the law has no teaching or forming power. He believes this because if the law taught us, that would be coercion, and coercion is wrong. The conservative believes the law can and does teach. It forms us into good citizens. It coerces, like our parents coerced, and like all virtue requires some coercion. Because the conservative believes this about the law, he must give pause whenever these sorts of arguments are advanced. He must believe that the law, if it is true law, is not the thing that is defective.

Like many libertarian arguments, Mr. Brandow begins with the morally sensible statement, “Drug use is bad,” but then proceeds to argue why people should be allowed to do this bad thing. It would seem that any sensible person, after realizing fellow human beings are harming themselves, would devote any energies spent on the matter to finding a way to stop this bad thing. I think Mr. Brandow would agree we should mainly be looking for private means, but at least those who advocate for government intervention have followed the completely reasonable line of argument that bad things are bad. That people who are abusing their freedom don’t need to be told about their rights, but about their duty.

Lastly, Mr. Brandow repeats the frequently used argument that drugs should be treated like alcohol because drunken people are more likely to commit crimes and injure others. He further seems to argue for the moral superiority of drugs because, unlike the ruckus caused by alcohol, drugs “promote passivity.” I can never help but laugh at this argument, as it is so suited to our age. It is true, of course, that alcohol induces people to do many terrible things. But it has also induced them to write many lines of poetry, compose many operas, and to dance and sing in the streets. It compels otherwise bashful young men to profess their undying love to beautiful women. It makes otherwise stoic men shed their tears and lay down their burdens. It makes men release their anger. It makes men revel in their joy.

But of course, all these human things pale in comparison to the moral superiority of “passivity.” Ours is an age that eats mass-produced food while sitting on mass-produced furniture while watching mass-produced entertainment while arguing with others on mass virtual media. This has come to be known as progress, and drugs are well suited in aiding this passivity. Something that induces something as harmless as “the munchies” must be morally superior to anything that induces passion.

It is because I believe our age to be paltry enough already that I believe we don’t need any assistance from “passive” drugs. It may be the Johnnie Walker speaking, but I must adamantly say: to hell with them.