Classical Liberalism and Drugs
Jonah Goldberg wrote quite a well-reasoned and interesting post for the Corner about classical liberalism and drugs. Can classical liberals advocate criminalizing certain drugs? Goldberg says yes:
So anyway, the assumption behind a classically liberal society is that men are sovereign, rational, actors morally responsible for their actions. The problem is that for an irreducible number of people, drug addiction takes away reason, takes away the God-given (or socially constructed, if you prefer) moral sense. Once, addicted, you may be responsible for your actions in a legal and even moral sense, but as a practical matter something like possession is at work.
I think a classical liberal could argue that a free society needs to ensure freedom, including from substances that have the potential to enslave men. Classical liberals would take up arms against a society that would enslave 10% of the people in the conventional sense, and rightly so. But when it comes to this kind of enslavement, the response runs completely the other way.
So, now what if the drug in question enslaved 100% of the people who took it? Couldn’t the government ban it then?…
I’m not necessarily asking whether it should, but merely whether it could and remain a classically liberal society. My guess is that classical liberals of good will would come down on both sides of the question.
To me, both views can be defended by classical liberals. A classical liberal could follow Goldberg’s reasoning and criminalize drugs when in power. On the other hand, another classical liberal could consider the reasoning to be “over-the-top,” that man is responsible for his own choices, and that something being bad does not mean it should be made illegal.
Although I do not consider myself a classical liberal any longer – growing older often has that effect on people – I always thought some drugs should be outlawed. That’s the wonderful thing about European liberalism (in all its shapes and forms): we all agree on basic principles, but those principles are applied in different ways.
What drug is he talking about? Can’t be marijuana.
Or is it just a hypothetical?
The fundamental principle is that the people decide for themselves what activities should be criminalized. The essential point is what the government’s response should be vis-a-vis maintaining prohibition when the voters want it ended. A government that fails to respond can no longer be considered liberal, can it?