Columns

Keiran Bunn argues the affirmative while Thomas Mitchell argues the negative.
Affirmative
 
Illegal drugs can be loosely broken into two categories: those which do minimal harm, for example marijuana, and those that do a lot of harm, like amphetamines or heroine. Both of these groups of drugs should be legalized, but for very different reasons.

 
First, let’s examine the “softer” drugs, the most obvious of which is marijuana. These drugs are harmful, with detrimental effects, when taken in excess. However these effects are comparable to those of alcohol and tobacco. So why should we let people take something that is actively harmful to their health? The reason is simple yet fundamental: they enjoy it. It is entirely possible for people to make a rational decision to take drugs, weighing up the health cost to yourself against your enjoyment, as is often done with fast food. It should be remembered that “enjoyment” is not trivial; enjoyment makes your life worth living.

 
Now to the question of “hard” drugs like P or cocaine; why should these hideous chemicals be legal? This time the answer is not quite as simple. We have to look to the actual effects of the current ban. It is undeniable that some people choose to take these drugs, happily flouting the law. Would more people do this if it were legal? The answer is probably yes, but not very many. The reason most people don’t take heroine is not that it is illegal: many people break driving laws or take “softer” drugs. The reason most people don’t take heroine is that it has the potential to utterly destroy your life. These people, hopefully you and me, still would not take heroine if it were legal. The people who currently take “hard” drugs are often right at the bottom of our social ladder, and need our help more than anyone. However, the law blocks us from doing this.

 
Finally, both the “soft” and “hard” drugs currently guarantee huge revenues for gangs. All of this money that could be channeled into helping people with drug addictions or into drug education is now buying guns. Furthermore, without any regulation people who care nothing for the death of their users, only for profit, can mix these drugs with toxins.

 
The ban on some drugs is simply hypocritical when alcohol and cigarettes are considered. On others the ban is well intentioned but, far from preventing the damage they can cause, it simply magnifies the effects of these drugs, both on the individuals who we currently cannot help and by funding the gangs who are all too happy to fill the niche market we have created.
 

Negative
 
The main arguments for the legalisation of drugs are that each individual should have the right to choose what they put in their body as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences of their actions. It’s sort of like how your friendly neighborhood liquor store will be happy to sell you four crates of Sogos because it isn’t his problem how you consume them, but yours. You are free to drink them in moderation or all at once, and consequently pass out in the Leith, because it is you who has to deal with the potential personal harm, death or, in the best case, a date with the Proctor. Right?

 
Well, not so much. Can I walk down the street naked? Can I say whatever I like? (If you said “yes” to that, try yelling “hijack” on a plane and let me know what happens). The point is that we can’t actually do whatever we want with our bodies. The government has - and should have - the ability to restrict some of our actions when the benefits of doing so are overwhelmingly favorable.
 

When Antonie Dixon decided to play Kill Bill while fucked on meth, it ended with him katana-ing off the arms of two women and shooting a guy with a submachine gun. If this is the so-called “intended” result of meth, imagine the consequences if one were able to pick up the goods at your corner Foursquare?
 

A recent NZ Police study found that the hard drugs methamphetamine and cocaine cause $1.1 million and $403,000 of social harm per respective kilogram consumed.  These results will be the same under any alternative model as it is likely the existing suppliers of drugs will continue to supply under legalisation. Gangs and drug pushers will now be free to sell as much as they want because they already have the mechanisms for supply and obviously don’t care about any of the social ills they might be causing. Only now their business would be without any risk of imprisonment or consequence.
 

In my last minute research for this article I came across a quote from American conservative William Bennet, a strong believer in the harm of drugs. I think it sums up pretty well the choice we have when it comes to the drug policy of tomorrow.

 
“Imagine if, in the darkest days of 1940, Winston Churchill had rallied the West by saying, ‘This war looks hopeless, and besides, it will cost too much.  Hitler can't be that bad. Let's surrender and see what happens.’ That is essentially what we hear from the legalisers.”

 
Correction: Last week, we inadvertently swapped the names of the debateable writers. John Brinsley-Pirie argued the affirmative, while Nancy El-Gamel argued the negative.