While the report is common sense to most people, whether it causes law enforcement to change their ways has yet to be determined, but most aren’t holding their breath. This is especially true in Canada where Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are forging ahead with Bill C-15, which would impose mandatory prison sentences for some drug crimes.

The authors of the report stated that drug prohibition has not reduced the supply of drugs, but rather has led to an increase in profits for drug gangs. That’s something for politicians to think about when they’re puffing their cigarettes and sipping their booze.

The War on drugs has Become a War Against Us

The use of mind altering drugs has been the subject of much controversy in the past few decades. Substances such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, opium and many others have had a place in human societies for many centuries however, and they continue to be prevalent today. One hundred years ago, the first institution to combat the use of drugs was established in Shanghai. In 1998, the UN General Assembly asked its members to “commit to achieving a ‘drug-free world’ and to ‘eliminating or significantly reducing’ the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008” (How to Stop the Drug Wars). Clearly, that goal has not yet been achieved and it is likely that it may never be realized. Currently, it is estimated that approximately 5% of the world’s population use illegal drugs (How to Stop the Drug Wars). Supporters of prohibition claim that legalization would only exacerbate the problem, while its opponents maintain that although legalizing drugs would not eliminate their use, it would have an overall positive result. Drawing from Utilitarian principles, in this essay I will argue that drugs ought to be made legal because individuals have the right to self determination, and because legalization of drugs would be beneficial to society at large.

As adult individuals, we reserve the right to decide what we want to do to our own bodies, even if that means causing harm to them. John Steward Mill writes, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (Mill 239). According to Utilitarians, as long as what we do does not cause harm to others, no one, including government, is justified in stopping our actions or interfering with our rights (Hospers 326). We have many rights that are protected by our governments, such as the right to life, free speech and liberty. When it comes to our bodies however, our legal rights are inconsistent and unclear; do we have the legal right to cause damage to our bodies? Governments sanction the use of some substances like alcohol and nicotine, which have proven adverse health effects, while prohibiting the use of others, like marijuana and cocaine.

Mill’s argument rests on the ground that the individual can judge most accurately what his or her own best interests are. Gerald Dworkin opposes this assertion by claiming that in the case of drugs, paternalism (the view that a person’s rights can be restricted in order to protect the individual from himself) is justified, because drug use produces long lasting, negative and irreversible changes that jeopardize the user’s lifestyle and often prevent him from making rational decisions (Dworkin 340).

When we review Dworkin’s argument from a rule Utilitarian perspective however, it becomes evident that paternalism would severely limit many of our freedoms and ultimately cause more harm than good.

If the paternalist position to outlaw actions that cause harm to individuals physically or psychologically were to become a general rule, it would mean that society would be justified in prohibiting many of the actions we perform on a daily basis. For example, eating high fat foods can cause physical illnesses and lower quality of life. Would it be just then to ban the production, sale and consumption of butter? Most would deem that an absurd notion. Another example would be having sex too early in a relationship. It is often believed that when two people become physically close, it becomes difficult to maintain an objective view of the relationship, and we are often compelled to make irrational choices because of our emotional involvement. So would society be justified in imposing a minimum waiting period on couples before they can become sexually active? Surely that would not go over very well.

So why is the subject of drugs treated differently? It appears that as a society, our understanding of what is right and what is wrong is often rooted in our customs and accepted norms, rather than logic and evidence. So eating unhealthy food is not considered to be unethical, because it has been a common practice, while taking drugs is considered unethical because society does not accept that behaviour. Psychiatrist and anti-prohibitionist Thomas Szasz refers to this as “a plea for legitimizing old and accepted practices and for illegitimizing novel and unaccepted ones” (Szasz 348). He asserts that this justification rests on precedence, not evidence and is therefore invalid (Szasz 348).

Supporters of prohibition claim that prohibiting the use of drugs is to the benefit of society, because their use diminishes not only the happiness of the user but also that of other members of society via the user. Some argue that the effects associated with use of drugs are not limited to the individual using them, but extend to family members of users, especially to children, who often are neglected by addicted parents (Wilson 354). Thus, they claim, government is justified in prohibiting their use as a means to increase overall utility.

Although drugs do affect those close to users, the negative effects are not sufficient ground for banning their use. It is evident that we have obligations to those we hold dear, as well as legal obligation to care for minors under our care; but those obligations are best fulfilled when we act them out according to our own will, rather than rules imposed on us by others. Mill’s position is that ultimately, autonomy will lead to greater overall happiness. “Each is the guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental, or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest” (Mill 241).

In addition to advocating individuals’ rights to self determination, many proponents of legalization also emphasize the economic and social benefits that can be gained by decriminalizing the use of drugs. “The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5 million of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them” (How to Stop the Drug Wars). Legalization of drugs would allow for those funds to be spent on prosecuting more serious criminals. It would also eliminate the drug dealer and redirect the money that is currently going into the pockets of criminals to legitimate businesses, thereby benefitting society at large. The government would impose taxes on drugs and use the revenue to achieve economic and social goals.

Furthermore, through legalization, the government would be able to regulate the sale and use of drugs. Drug users are currently at the mercy of the dealer, who will sell to anyone with enough money, regardless of their age or mental status. The dosage and quality of drugs is also not currently controlled. By making drugs legal, users would have access to cleaner, safer drugs, prescribed by physicians with the user’s best interest in mind. As the number of drug pushers declines, vulnerable children and youth would be less at risk of using drugs. Drug addiction may not be eliminated altogether, but it can be handled as a health-care issue, rather than a criminal matter. One major concern of the opponents of legalization is that the use of drugs and addiction rates would rise significantly if they were decriminalized. There is however evidence from the WHO showing that there is “no link between the strictness of prohibition and the amount of drug consumption” (How to Stop the Drug Wars).

In conclusion, drugs should be legalized because upholding autonomy and personal freedoms benefits society by increasing overall utility. Moreover, decriminalizing them would have economic and social benefits that outweigh the negative effects of drug use. Finally, prohibition has proven largely ineffective and very costly. It seems illogical and immoral to pursue a path that has no proven benefits to society and its individual members.

Works Cited
“How to Stop the Drug Wars.” The Economist 07 03 2009: 15, 16, 30-36.
MacKinnon, Barbabra. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2007.
White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2006.