|
I think it would be more appropriate to say,
"Whenever a thick-headed legislator passes a new anti-drug law, one of us may die."
I'm very well aware of the problems faced in South America due to the economic impact of drug trafficking, so I'm not going to dwell on the facts but rather go on to discuss causality, and how it pertains to these unacceptable events.
The direct cause of any event like this is quite obvious: some individual or group of individuals involved in the drug trade volitionally decided to carry out these violent acts.
Things like the demand for drugs, anti-drug legislation in most countries around the world, the failure of South American governments to adequately control the problem (admittedly easier said than done), et cetera are all indirect causes. If these things were not the case, it is true that the undesirable event probably wouldn't have happened. But it's very dangerous to try to blame indirect causes for the undesirable event or phenomenon. Consider the folowing analogy:
Suppose I were to go up to a random person on the street and stab them to death with a knife. Obviously, this is an undesirable event. The direct cause of it was my volitional choice to do so. However, the event couldn't have happened if the following things (and many others) were not true:
1. Someone had to sell me the knife, or put it somewhere where I could obtain it.
2. The victim had to be out on the street, where I happened to be.
Obviously, this wouldn't be an sound argument to not manufacture or sell knives. And likewise, it wouldn't be proof we should never leave our homes. These things are really incidental to the undesirable event.
But that doesn't mean we should completely disregard indirect causes, either. For example, if I'm playing my music too loud, the direct cause of the disturbance is the sonic vibrations produced by my speakers and sub. However, if someone wanted to solve this problem, they might be better off asking me to turn it down than trying to prevent the vibrations manually.
So the question is, what indirect causes are there of these events which are themselves unnecessary, and which can be removed without causing new and more serious problems to arise?
Philosophically, I don't think that telling people not to use drugs is such a cause because it violates the principle of self-ownership. That is to say, you are taking away the right of a person to control their body to the fullest extent possible. Some people, myself included, believe that self-ownership is a Natural Right, and therefore it is a moral imperative for all humans not to infringe upon it.
Which leads me to anti-drug legislation. The justifications given for it are simply not logically valid. It is ideologically flawed, and unnecessary, and it could be removed without causing new and more serious problems to arise - at least, that is my claim (I don't want to turn this into a legalization debate unless necessary).
To just reference what you said about health-care systems, I've heard that argument a million times and am thoroughly unconvinced. Health care costs are invoked by drugs only when drugs are used improperly (if using a drug properly would send you to the hospital, it couldn't gain popularity). And why are drugs used improperly? Here are the main reasons:
1. People don't know exactly what they're taking due to impurities.
2. People don't know how much is too much, and overdose.
3. People mix drugs which interact harmfully.
These three factors would all be significantly reduced if drugs were legal. If they were legal, and produced by companies like pharmaceutical companies, then they could be subject to regulation for the complete elimination of impurities. Dosages could be precisely measured, and acceptable dosages could be listed on the product label (just like they are for medicinal drugs). More research could be done on drug interactions, and it would be easier to keep people informed about what might be harmful.
Due to these factors, I would go so far as to guarantee that health care costs associated with drug use would plummet within 2-3 years of legalization. Ergo, although I do not personally use drugs other than alcohol, I believe that legalization is the answer to the problems in South America - and the philosophically sound course of action to boot!
Best Wishes,
Arbiter
|