The government is in the business of drawing lines. I imagine drugs were thought to cross the line because with their use families and lives are consumed/destroyed, communities go from poor to apocalyptic (ie crack), babies are born with defects (if they survive), kids are neglected/abused, etc...
Is it a slippery slope to outlawing donuts or skydiving? I personally think that argument is one of the weaker ones. Yeah the government's decision to regulate this and not that is not based on 'objective' morality because 'objective' morality doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that analysis/regulation of vice/risky behavior is "arbitrary". I think historically lawmakers would argue that the cost to society/individuals was greater in communities flooded with drugs than in those flooded with sugary products.
I hope it's clear that much of my post is tongue in cheek
🙂 but I am totally serious in my opposition to nanny-state enforcement of drug laws. And not merely because I view it as an outright infringement on all human beings' inherent right to live their lives as well or as poorly as they choose, but also because the collateral damage of these laws
to everyone else is outrageous and unacceptable.
I think reasonable people can disagree, philosophically, on where the government's compelling interest in regulating something should begin and end. There is merit to arguing, as you do, that it is the government's business and purpose to reduce the social cost and morbidity of certain behaviors.
And surely, detering and punishing various undesirable acts has played a role in the past.
Where this argument falls apart with prohibition, however, is in the real world efficacy of those policies, and unintended consequences. Most of the social harm related to drug use is NOT the individual users' poor health or lost productivity, but rather a direct consequence of prohibition itself:
- enforcement costs paid by everyone
- incarceration costs suffered by perpetrators of crimes that don't create 3rd party victims (heavily skewed toward minorities and the poor BTW)
- violence related to the lucrative black market
Even entirely setting aside the moral issues, I'm convinced that ending prohibition is the correct realpolitik solution.
Short version:
1) Morally, prohibition itself is questionable. I like this quote: "In any free society, the conflict between social conformity and individual Liberty is permanent, unsolvable, and necessary." (Kathleen Norris) This ongoing conflict doesn't benefit from government involvement.
2) Practically, prohibition itself has failed to meet its stated goals in truly spectacular fashion. Beyond its failure, it has a high cost, and direct/indirect harms associated with it.
So why are we still doing it?
