In listening to the speech by Ayn Rand I linked on Monday, she was asked during the Q&A session about the government’s prohibition of drugs. While this deals specifically with drug use, it is applicable to any sort of consumption, or action for that matter, a man can choose. (Any errors in the transcription are mine.)
I do not approve of any government controls over consumption generally of every kind. I would advocate that all restrictions on drugs be removed. I don’t believe the government has the right to tell adults what they do with their own health and their own life. But that places a much greater moral responsibility on the individual. Just because the government shouldn’t prohibit not only marijuana, take the worst of them whatever it is: heroin, LSD, or cocaine I don’t know what is the worst, or morphine. I don’t think the government should prohibit any of them. Except of course sales to minors, that would be proper. But for adults I think they should be free to kill themselves in any way they want to. But that is why it is a moral issue. It is the responsibility of the individual not to take the kind of things, physical, chemical things that destroy his mind.
I would say I would fight for your right to use marijuana and I would fight you morally to the death that you should not do it except of course in a free society I would not have to deal with you at all if you wanted to take it and I disagree. All that the government should do is only protect citizens from the consequences of those who take drugs. That is if they turn to crime, if they rob in order to provide themselves with money. That is the province of the government.
But you know, drugs would be much cheaper if it weren’t for government law, just as under prohibition. It was the boot-leggers who didn’t want the repeal of prohibition because criminals made fortunes because alcohol was forbidden. It is the same here. It is the underworld that is spreading the drug traffic, particularly to the young and then addicts become new pushers because the drugs are so expensive and they need the money. It would be much cheaper and easier, and morally much more vicious on the part of anyone who would take drugs, if they were permitted by the government.
I like the idea and I agree, in principle at least. However, the only way I would agree to vote to support such a policy would be if there were no government (i.e. taxpayer) funding of so-called “treatment plans” and rehab facilities for the drug users.
“Rights” all come with corresponding responsibilities. If you choose to use/abuse drugs and alcohol, you also must agree to accept responsibility for all of the potential consequences of that choice. It’s not anyone else’s obligation to take care of the addict or the drunkard.
I agree, and I believe Ayn Rand would as well, and for the same reason she opposed the prohibition of drugs or alcohol: it is beyond the scope of government action which should be limited to only protecting rights. It continues to amaze me that people who will decry government interference in their choices, be it food or drugs or whatever, will be the among the first to claim the government has a responsibility to step in when those choices are made poorly.
I have a friend on Facebook who consistently posts items that I would consider anarchic (all government is bad) but who will also from time to time post things praising statist and coercive government action such as how the government in Denmark pays for all education through university including a $900 per month stipend to students. Of course that fails to take into account the income, which can exceed 50% of income, and consumption (VAT) taxes, another 25%, needed to pay for it.
If you have a chance, you should definitely listen to the recordings I linked in the post, especially the Q&A.
Ayn Rand believed the notion that rights impose responsibilities/obligations implies that rights are a gift from the state & that men must buy them by offering something in return. Since the concept of inalienable, individual rights pertains only to freedom of action, man’s rights impose no obligations save of a negative kind: to abstain from violating the rights of others.
While true that there are no true rights that impose obligations from the government, it is equally true that no right to action gives you the right to avoid the consequences of that action. So as the first comment pointed out, if you choose to abuse drugs, you also must, as part of that choice, accept the responsibility for the consequences of that act.
Oddly, I just came across a quote from Ayn Rand about rights and obligations. This is from her collection of essays “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.”
I would add to this the law of causality, in this case you cannot enact a cause (i.e., drug abuse) and not take responsibility for the effect (i.e., the health and other problems likely to result.)