Mr Khan said:
Even if we were to take a fully free-market approach to these things, banning certain substances could still be seen as a net positive. While some people can live with addiction (that is, function normally or in an acceptable capacity) many cannot, and those who cannot work due to a drug habit become an economic detriment, whether through poor performance in the workplace or through being fired and becoming an economic non-actor, or worse, a criminal looking for drug money because they can't hold down a job. The only tilt in favor of total liberalization is that the drugs would be much, much cheaper to obtain, but zero income is still zero income, and is economically adverse, and these problems are only multiplied in societies that acknowledge the government's role as a provider of welfare. Since no man is an island, even under the bleakest of filters that see man only as an economic animal, wilfully damaging your own health is still bad for society as a whole, and their "right" to damage their own health then ends up infringing upon our rights to happiness (through economic success) or property (through the promoted thievery). Through a left, right, statist, or libertarian perspective, legalizing hard drugs is a bad idea. |
Good lord, where is the logic? How do you arrive at the conclusion that hard drugs turn people into a burden on the state? Do you understand that alcohol is a hard drug and that many that consume it are of no detriment to the economy? Why not take into account that drug prohibition is extremely costly to implement and enforce? Why not consider the fact that drug prohibition is completely ineffective at actually preventing drug use? Also, you talk of the individuals obligations to the state but what about the state's obligations to respect my rights and freedoms? Why only focus on the monetary cost of drug use and not the human cost of prohibition?
