7. Drugs, including tobacco
and alcohol: still
more form, but with an existential element. I am alive, and I should be able to
control the circumstances of my life, including my participation in activities
that put it at risk. No one should be able to tell me that I cannot expose myself
to danger, even when there is a high probability that I will die, unless I also
expose other people to it (without their consent) or harm them in some way. Therefore,
I have the right to drink alcohol, even to drink myself to death, but not to do
it in a way that puts other people at risk, e.g., to drive while intoxicated.
Similarly, I have the right to smoke tobacco, but again, this does not extend
to affecting others, including through exposing them to second hand smoke, unless
they willingly accept this. (Restaurants and bars should be free to allow smoking,
or not, or to provide separate facilities for each, since if you are a non-smoker
and other people are smoking you can always choose to leave, or not to go.) However,
such freedoms do not extend to the manufacturers of tobacco products and alcoholic
beverages. They should not be allowed to manipulate us through advertising to
want to smoke and drink, such as because it is cool.
Drinking and smoking are enjoyable, so they should not be prohibited. And
this extends to other drugs as well. People are free to try them, even experiment
with them. There is no fundamental reason why society should prohibit this.
However, society does prohibit it, on the grounds that it is protecting us, and
itself, from the costs that are incurred.
Is this a type of protection that we need? Im not sure. In a world dominated
by form, experimentation often leads to abuse, but this would be much less likely
in a world guided by reason. In any case, it is dependent on the specific drug
involved. Marijuana, for instance, does not inevitably lead to social harm (it
causes far fewer problems than either alcohol or tobacco), and as such it should
be legalized. In this specific case, society is being overly protective, and also
repressive, since so many people have tried and do use the drug. Other drugs,
though, must be considered separately, since they have stronger effects and greater
risks of addiction, which can easily lead to real anti-social behavior, such as
crime. A basis for maintaining their illegality, at least at present, therefore
may exist. But it is of course open to debate which world causes, or would cause,
more harm. Making such drugs illegal has led to the imprisonment of huge numbers
of people and the formation of a criminal class. Without their illegality, there
would likely be more use, but also less real crime (and also a great reduction
in government expenses, particularly for the police and prisons).
The underlying form which is objectionable is that society wants to control us,
to eliminate our ability to take risks, and therefore to experience all aspects
of life. And this should be resisted. But society does have a point about such
behavior incurring costs. If you smoke, or drink, you must willingly accept responsibility
for the consequences, including such risks as cancer and heart disease, and also
higher personal insurance costs. And this brings us to the last aspect of form
that is relevant to the issue. Any time you do such things it will affect you,
including your mental clarity, your identity and your life. These are the costs
that you incur for the benefit of artificially induced exhilaration. You should
ask yourself, is it really worth it? (Also, arent there any natural sources
- non-drug - of such exhilaration?)