FREE ESSAY ON OUR RIGHT TO DRUGS

OUR RIGHT TO DRUGS

Please, sir. . . may I have some more?
The Analysis of a Paternalistic Government
A Report on Our Right to Drugs by Thomas Szasz
You might be tempted to label Thomas Szasz, author of Our Right to Drugs, The Case for a
Free Market, a counter-culture hippie. However, this analysis couldn't be further from
the truth. Szasz, a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York
Health Science Center in Syracuse, is a major supporter of civil liberties. He sees the
so-called War on Drugs as one of the worst atrocities that the American Government has
perpetrated on its people. Szasz contends that the prohibition of certain drugs,
including common prescription drugs, is nothing more than the government telling the
people that father knows best. It is this paternalistic attitude that Szasz finds so
oppressive.
Mr. Szasz makes three key arguments throughout his book. First, the War on Drugs is a
failure and can never succeed. It should be stopped immediately. Second, drug
legalization is not a viable answer. It would only turn into another attempt by the
government to control drugs and would not be any more of a free market than the current
system of drug prohibition. Third, he proposes a solution. The solution is to end all
drug regulation by the government; in effect, creating a free market for drugs. He
doesn't stop at illicit drugs, however. He also includes prescription drugs in this
solution as well. He sees the government's drug control policy as an attempt by the
government to control its population, much like a parent controls his/her children.
In order to get at what Mr. Szasz is saying, we must first examine his definition of what
a free market is. Szasz defines the free market as the right of every competent adult to
trade in goods and services. (Szasz, page 2). In other words, he is outlining a
laissez-faire system of the free market. Szasz contends that the government's only role
in a free market is to protect people from force and fraud and, to the maximum extent
possible, abstain from participating in the production and distribution of goods and
services. (Szasz, page 2). In this system of laissez-faire, the government has a very
small role. According to Szasz, the government should have a passive role in any market,
including the market for drugs. Once the government gives up its active role, which is
represented by the war on drugs, a free market for drugs which Szasz proposes can be
attained. 
As we delve into Mr. Szasz's first argument, we begin to see major problems with the
government's War on Drugs. According to Szasz, the prohibition of drugs is a blatant
violation of human rights guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution. In order
to prove his point, he equates drugs to personal property. According to the Constitution,
every American citizen shall have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property,
the first two elements resting squarely on the last. (Szasz, 1). Thus, Szasz contends
that because both our bodies and drugs are types of property-producing, trading in, and
using drugs are property rights, and drug prohibitions constitute a deprivation of basic
constitutional rights. (Szasz, 2). In other words, just like the prohibition of alcohol
required a constitutional amendment, so does the prohibition of drugs. Without that
amendment, the prohibition of drugs is in direct violation of the Constitution.
The second argument that Szasz makes is one, surprisingly enough, against the
legalization of drugs. Even though Szasz argues for a free market for drugs, this is much
different from the argument that self-proclaimed drug legalizers make. According to
Szasz, most proponents of drug legalization argue for what he calls Legalization as
Taxation (Szasz, page 106). Ethan Nadelmann, professor of politics and public affairs at
Princeton University, claims the following,
Let's say we decide, okay, we're not going to legalize crack; what we will do is legalize
15-percent cocaine. . . . Yes, some people are still going to want to go to the black
market. . . and buy crack. You won't be able to prevent that. But let's say 70 percent of
the market will be using the legal, less potent substance. That's good, because the
government taxes it, regulates it. . . . The object is to undercut the criminal element
(Szasz, page 106).
From this, we can only conclude that proponents of so called drug legalization are only
pushing the legalization in order to eliminate or significantly reduce the criminal
element. However, Szasz continues to add that Undercutting the criminal element is a far
cry from seriously engaging the problem of drug controls, (Szasz, page 107). In other
words, even though legalization is possibly a step in the right direction, it still
wouldn't bring this country out of the woods. 
In comparison, Szasz analyzes how legalizing drugs would be much like the system of
prescription medication. The comparison between the prescription drug to the illicit drug
is one of Szasz's most compelling arguments. According to Szasz, we will never be able to
control all the substances out there. Szasz outlines how this mentality is much like an
overprotective parent. The government doesn't trust its own people with their own bodies
and the decisions that affect their bodies. Szasz states, in no uncertain terms, that
people should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies.
This leads directly into Szasz's third argument. Szasz argues that the solution to the
country's drug problems is to lift all prohibitions on all drugs, illicit and
prescription. Then and only then would our government be obeying the Constitution as it
is written. This laissez-faire system places the responsibility on the American people to
police themselves when it comes to drugs. However, Szasz says that he recognize[s] a need
for limiting the free market in drugs, just as [he] recognize[s] a need for limiting the
free market in many other goods. The legitimate place for that limit, however, is where
free access to a particular product presents a 'clear and present danger' to the safety
and security of others. (Szasz, page 7). Thus, Szasz recognizes that if people pose a
threat to the Constitutional rights of others, the government is obligated to step in and
regulate, much as it does with dynamite or guns. This should be the government's only
role, however. It has no legal right to do anything else.
Szasz has really done something amazing with this book. Being a child of the 1980s, I
have had anti-drug propaganda shoved down my throat at every corner. Whether it was just
say no or images of how stupid marijuana made you, it was a staple of a young boy's life.
It even got to me. The government convinced me that drugs were evil, something that only
hardened criminals did. Even worse, drugs could transform a little boy into a hardened
criminal. What Szasz has been able to do with his arguments, however, is open my eyes to
the other side of the debate. Now, given the knowledge his book has given me, I am able
to make more informed decisions when it comes to the laws of our country. I only hope
that one day I am in a position to educate more people of the atrocities our government
is guilty of.