There is no doubt in my mind that using drugs is a bad idea. But just because something is a bad idea, does not mean it should be against the law. The litmus test for government intervention should be, "harm to others." If an action harms others, the authorities should act. If it stands to harm no one but the individual acting, then the authorities should stand aside. The government should concern itself with dangerous felons: murderers, rapists, vandals, arsonists, thieves and the like (Robert, 2001). Any effort directed at victimless crimes draws our energy away from confronting real dangers. It would be more efficient and more worthwhile to concentrate focus just on real threats.
Drug dealers are currently a threat; yes. That's because they're already looking at jail time, so why not add a few counts of murder? We should learn from Prohibition. Prohibition created the very circumstances that allowed Al Capone to become a violent offender (Robert, 2001). With alcohol legal, Budweiser and Heineken aren't waging a street war. If we legalized drugs, drug dealers might still be scum, but at least not the kind of scum that shoot people.
Drug users are a threat to no one but themselves. There's no need to punish them because they're already punishing themselves with the natural consequences of their actions. If destroying their minds isn't enough to stop them, then no amount of prison time will. Besides, it's better to associate reasons to "just say no" with the real reasons to avoid it (James, 2001). If people think only of artificial sanctions that we impose, then they aren't thinking about the real dangers of drug use. And then, do we really want to waste our time hunting down anyone who took "a hit," only to decide they didn't like it?......
