Who Stones the Stoner?
By Tyler Orr

Prohibition is hugely expensive as a failed endeavour in itself, draining millions of dollars in ultimately futile police-work and imprisonment, all wasted against a foe that has proved its tenacity many times over.

Above all our society values the right of an individual to live according to their own wills, recognising that provided our actions do not harm others we should be free to live as we choose. Our legislation on drug use is a glaring exception to this value, and a constriction of our human right to live freely. We are restricted from choosing to use recreational drugs – choosing a pastime that harms no others.

Drugs give pleasure but also harm to those who use them. If they are prohibited because of this harm, should not all decisions that harm only ourselves, all putatively bad decisions, be prohibited likewise? Should the obese man who refuses to give up meatloaf and donuts be imprisoned, to share a cell with a pot-smoker and a murderer? If one person goes out of their way to capriciously neglect and hurt a friend, should the police be notified because of the harm inflicted? Morality, that cornerstone of human identity, has no meaning if we are only allowed to choose the good; prohibition of recreational drugs incubates a society of clockwork oranges.

That alcohol and cigarettes dance nimbly around our otherwise severe drug laws demonstrates that these laws are not proscribed by consistent logic and relevant argumentation, but by ignorance, hypocrisy and obstinacy in our social mores. Our drug laws require consistency. Legalisation of all recreational drugs would achieve this – those who wish to legalise cannabis, but shy away from “harder” drugs display hypocrisy the measure of those who demonise cannabis, whilst partaking in alcohol and tobacco.

Our politicians and policemen, in concert with the entirety of our society, all use drugs recreationally. Whether it is ubiquitous alcohol consumption, or equally widespread cannabis smoking, recreational drug use is omnipresent, visible or cloaked, legal or no. But if drug-use is everywhere, where is the lawless, drug-ravaged society that prohibition purports to protect us from? Apart from the astronomical amount of damage each year to property and to well-being stimulated by alcohol use, and the countless years of life lost from alcohol and tobacco caused disease and death, both of which legal, and the odd mediafrenzy when a P-user becomes violent, the ravages do not exist. Prohibition has produced an invisible underclass, a majority of New Zealanders who are called criminals for their choice of lifestyle. New Zealanders continue to use drugs despite the risks from self-justifying legislation, and our society continues to run smoothly despite the desperately promoted belief that widespread drug use equates to an apocalypse of civilisation.

Gagged Democracy
Our system of democracy has been barred access to the contemplation of drug laws. For democracy to operate effectively we must debate any issue before we reach a consensus on it; debate on drug use has been crippled by the ease with which proponents of prohibition can stereotype their opposition as criminal miscreants or deluded addicts, neatly bypassing any actual reasoned debate by wielding blunt prejudice. A majority may use drugs recreationally, a majority may support this, but a vocal ouroboros of prejudice and mudslinging drowns out their voices.

Prohibition adds to and exacerbates any harm recreational drugs may cause. Is the heroin-user disadvantaged entirely because of the drug’s biochemical effects? Recreational drug use is not intrinsically damaging - prohibition forcedly creates many of the ill effects associated with drug use. Prohibition silences the generation and distribution of knowledge about drugs and drugs use. It artificially raises the prices of drugs, financially burdening people who choose to use drugs recreationally - creating circumstances that force many into illegal means of money-gathering. It necessitates unsafe, secretive environments for drug use. Instead of stopping recreational drug use, prohibition pushes it into the shadows of society, where we are powerless to help those who may need it, where it can lie hidden and fester, while we are blessed with ignorance.

People use drugs regardless of legality, and they are punished regardless of sense. We refuse to help where help is needed, and instead produce misery where none was before, and compound any that was pre-existent. Where is our compassion in refusing to do anything other than to destroy the lives of drug-users with fines and imprisonment? Our social services react to drug users with either willed ignorance or reference for punishment – not help for people who need it, or reasoned information for those who don’t. Lack of information on the risks of drug use, lack of hygienic implements for recreational drug use, and lack of standardisation of recreational drug doses are some of the ill effects that ignoring the normalcy of drug use creates.

As people continue to use drugs recreationally despite legality, they must procure their drugs through channels that often involve true criminals. Prohibition artificially inflates drug prices to extravagant levels, creating a massive economy that society pretends simply does not exist. Large groups participating in this economy must accept its criminality, and these conditions are perfect for nurturing gang and mob organisations, by providing a sound financial platform for their activities. In criminalising an activity that does not harm others, prohibition greatly encourages groups and behaviour that cause genuine harm. Further money is wasted policing activity that would exist at a bare fraction of its current strength if prohibition did not exist.

Drug prohibition does not work. Prohibition does not stop recreational use or illegal drugs. It cows some into obeisance and entices others with the thrill of the illicit. The majority shroud their use, continuing regardless. Prohibition is hugely expensive as a failed endeavour in itself, draining millions of dollars in ultimately futile police-work and imprisonment, all wasted against a foe that has proved its tenacity many times over.

Apart from a brief honeymoon period of experimentation, would the realities of a society where recreational drug use is legal be so greatly different from the here-and-now? We can only guess, but there is no reason to assume that great change would occur, sans of course a great deal of money, time and livelihoods wasted by needless punishment. Whether prohibition exists or not, some people will wish to use drugs and some will not. Removing prohibition will primarily enable those who already use or wish to use recreational drugs to do so in an environment free of fear of prosecution.

Will the absence of prohibition create new desire to use drugs in those who had none previously? Despite the free sale of tobacco, we restrict positive advertising and display, restrict sales by age, and widely disperse knowledge of the harm tobacco causes. Such measures would still be available in a society without prohibition; allowing people to use drugs freely does not mean we allow advertising of substances that are addictive. But the crux of the question lies in how much the knowing that we are free to use recreational drugs would affect us personally. To what extent would you transform?

Feverish imaginings of a prohibition-less society throw up images of emaciated addicts littering the streets with needles, schoolchildren snorting lines of cocaine off their maths books in class. Who would be the ones running out to test their freedom by solidifying this mirage? The primitive fear this hyperbole evokes can easily behead logical arguments for legalised recreational drug use, if we allow it to envelop our thinking. Legalised recreational drug use is not equivalent to anarchy; propriety and decency would still be valued, disorder and harm still discouraged. Those who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol receive little leniency in their sentencing; this standard would remain in a prohibition-less society. If you choose to use drugs, you will still be punished for any true crimes you commit. The knowledge that you may be more likely to commit crime is a factor that individuals will have to take into consideration, in reaching a decision on drug use in a society that does not make the decision for them.

If more people use drugs because they become legal, then they are exercising their right to choose – they do so simply because they enjoy using drugs. And if it makes them happier, is it necessary to judge them for betraying our own individual prejudices? I consider our human right to freedom of choice so important that it is irrelevant whether removing prohibition would conflagrate drug use.

What of children, so easily swayed and influenced? Forgetting for a moment that all current drug-users were children once, and prohibition failed entirely to stop those poor impressionable children from choosing to use drugs recreationally, would legalised recreational drugs draw more children than usual into momentary and long-lived drug use?

Currently, if we wish our children not to use drugs, we can hide them behind the floozy half-truths of prohibition and the simple fear of being punished. Are we truly so terrified of being exposed as incompetent parents, that in a society where we are free to choose wisely or poorly, we feel we would fail to pass on our values and morals to our children? Are we incapable of teaching the young and vulnerable to think wisely and make good decisions? We show our strength by being free to choose right or wrong, good or bad – and come to a decision as individuals, free of the arbitrary reckoning of prohibition.

Recreational drug use should be legalised.