What to do about drugs?
Mike Treder
2010-10-07 00:00:00

Here at the IEET, our leadership is solidly opposed to prohibition of personal choice in almost every case. Whether it is reproductive rights, gender and sexuality, freedom of expression, or the taking of recreational drugs, we believe it is up to the individual to make those choices - and to accept the consequences - on their own.

Obviously, when the rights of others are at risk, then governments must step in and set legal boundaries. Driving while intoxicated should be punished severely, as should child sex abuse, as should the perpetrators of malware and egregious spammers. Freedom is not license to act without limits.

picHaving said that, though, we continue to oppose efforts to legislate dubious morality.

It's nearly always a bad idea when governments attempt to outlaw gambling, prostitution, pornography, abortion, or alcohol and other drugs. It doesn't work in practice, serving mostly to drive such activities underground and providing markets for organized crime to exploit. And it's simply wrong in principle: individuals should be free to choose their actions, so long as those actions do not bring harm to others.

We are especially interested in these issues when it comes to the future of personal expression. As technoprogressives, we want to see all sentient beings protected in their rights for self-augmentation, enhancement, or modification. Of course, we also believe that enabling technologies must first be tested for safety and efficacy, and then should be made universally accessible; we want everyone to have fair and equal access to approved treatments.

So, in our desire to safeguard the freedom of individuals to use - and not use - new technologies for cognitive enhancement, bodily expression, and the like, we are acutely interested in the question of drug legalization.

The long, bloody, and shameful (even if sometimes well-intentioned) US "war on drugs" goes back nearly a century. As described in this short article, legislatures, courts, and administrations both Republican and Democratic all have played a part. It is, sadly, a bipartisan and multi-branched failure.

Where do we go from here? Criminologist Kimberly Back offers a useful overview of the "Pros and Cons of Drug Legalization" that I urge you to read. She provides a balanced and dispassionate assessment of what could go right and what might go wrong should America (or other places) choose to relax some of the current restrictions on banned substances.

And in this opinion piece from the Seattle Times, Neal Peirce compares the situation in the US ("seemingly runaway drug usage, together with record arrest levels and imprisonments") with that of Portugal in the 1990s, where they made a surprising decision to decriminalize narcotics - to take away all criminal penalties.

The Portuguese parliament didn't "go soft" on drug traffickers - they're still liable to arrest and criminal prosecution. Police can still issue citations to drug users. But under the new law, in effect since 2001, the worst fate an apprehended drug user can expect is mandatory appearance before a "dissuasion commission" - which in turn is most likely to suggest a course of treatment.

The crucial advantage of decriminalization, says analyst Glenn Greenwald, is that it removes citizens' fear of government punishment. So they feel free to seek out help for treatment or stopping drug use altogether. The money formerly spent on "putting drug users into cages," as he puts it, is going for counselors and psychologists conducting quality treatment programs.


Would that work here, in the United States? Or are drugs simply too dangerous to decriminalize? Should we, at the very least, make the use of marijuana legal? Or would you be in favor of totally removing all restrictions on drugs?

That's the topic of our new poll for IEET readers. Please let us know your opinion!