I believe that all drugs should be legal. I stick with John Stuart Mill:
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Right on. But hard core drugs like heroin and cocaine et al. are addictive. In the case of a mental/physical addiction, does the individual still have the right to smoke/shoot/whatever his drug? Or is it acceptable to prevent him from having his drug by the use of force? The closest that Mill comes to this subject is pulling a drunkard down from the edge of a bridge (because of his obvious inebriation) because he is not in the right state of mind to make such a judgement for himself as to whether he is willing to jump off the bridge. In a sober state of mind, Mill argues, a man has the right to commit suicide.
So, if someone is mentally/physically addicted to a substance of some sort, is it acceptable to use force in order to prevent that person from enjoying that substance, given that they are not in a “rational” or sober state of mind? (forgive me: I have not yet studied praxeology, but know enough of it to know that technically every thought by an individual is subjectively rational according to his/her ends.)
The rule should be: Intervene at your own risk. If someone is about to kill themselves and you forcibly intervene, you are still liable for assault should they choose to pursue that charge against you. So, intervene at your own risk. The principle of strict, unlimited, individual liability should be in operation at all times and, in a private law society, it is.
Clayton: My apologies for not being clear. Is it acceptable for the government to forcibly prevent someone from using drugs if they are addicted to the substance? Maybe if it was phrased as an argument…
Someone: Drugs are bad and should be illegal.
Me: The individual should be able to consume whatever he wants so long as he doesn’t harm anyone in the process
Someone: Well what if they are physically/mentally addicted? Is the individual still able to decide for himself or is it the substance that is in control? Surely then, the government has a legitimate authority to protect the individual in question from doing harm to himself to which he himself has not consented?
As long as the user harms no other person or their property, there is no libertarian justification for intervention. Besides, prohibition only exacerbates the problem by artificially restricting supply (thereby increasing prices - and profit motive) and unnecessarily involving the criminal element in all transactions (i.e., you buy booze from Al Capone instead of 7-Eleven).
Besides, think about the fact that we – that is, our government – cannot even keep drugs out of PRISONS (or schools for that matter). Given that, how could it possibly manage to do so within a “free” society?
If some people choose to use, that is their prerogative. And unless an individual shows himself to be an active threat to the life or property of another, it is immoral to treat him as a criminal - especially for behaviors that are not crimes (except by current statute). Rather than advocating “eradication” of drugs via counterproductive State violence (that is, the status quo), I think a much more freedom-oriented attitude is to not use drugs or associate with anyone who does. No need to involve the hired muscle for that.
Governments should also be subject to strict liability. If a government forces someone not to take drugs, it should be liable for assault and any other crimes it commits in the process.
Most of the problems associated with drug addiction actually come from prohibition and not from the drugs themselves. I will not say that drug abuse does not have social and psychological implications. But those problems are exacerbated by prohibition. If you take the example of arresting a 18 year old boy for drugs (cannabis) and putting them in prison for a few years. There are many problems with this. The person might have gone in to prison with limited knowledge of drugs and crime and they usually end up addicted to more drugs inside prison and become more of a criminal.They will get a criminal record which could make it more difficult for them to get a job and lead the person back in to addiction.
If someone is slowly killing themselves with drugs it should be up to people he knows to save his life, if they care about him. If a person has no one to care about them and they want to kill themselves with hard drugs, then the police should not have the right to arrest the person. But you will find that in some cases there are places available with people that do need help find and people do help them. If someone is about to suddenly kill themselves whilst on a mind and mood altering chemical and you are in position to prevent them, then you should in my opinion. It should not make any difference if the person is intoxicated, people should use whatever force possible to save the person life. But this sort of thing happens all the time without the involvement of the police.
Another point that I think is a big problem when it comes to drug prohibition and drug treatment in general, ie addiction culture. All the drugs are seen as one, even though they all have different social and psychological effects. I met this guy that had been taken heroin (and loads more) for 28 years and he had a blood clot in his one leg, where the vein was so badly infected that the blood was coming through the skin. He had two holes in his groin the size of a pea. He was a realy nice guy and had suffered a traumatic life. But if we are talking about that sort of person in the context of the OP then I think an amount of force to save the guy would not be unreasonable, from the people around him, family, friends etc. But any amount of force on that sort of case is unlikely to be successful anyway and will probably only make it worse.