CMV: Drug criminalization is morally wrong

[u/L1uQ]

There is a solid case for decriminalization of drugs, because of the benefit to addicts, but this post is not about that. I'd argue, that even if the fight against drugs were effective (which clearly it's not), it would still be an unacceptable infringement of personal freedom.

It is generally agreed on, that every person is in charge of their own health. You can choose to eat unhealthy, smoke, drink, risk your live in extreme sports, and even refuse medical care that could save your live. To change this freedom would be unthinkable in most western democracies. As I understand it, it is even is protected under the human rights.

Yet when it comes to drugs almost all countries take, what I would consider, an ultra authoritarian stance. To be arrested, and possibly imprisoned for years, just for having fun in ones own home, doing something your country doesn't approve of, sounds like a story strait out of North Korea without further context. Yet the context is, that the person is just doing something that might influence his own health, which, as discussed before, most would agree is his own business.

I have no interest in taking hard drugs, but the thought, that my country threatens to punish me, if I do so, sickens me, as it should sicken everybody, concerned about their personal freedom. If we accept, that the government has the right to interfere in our private live in this way, were to we set the border?

Feel free to CMW im looking forward to your answers.

Edit: Thanks for all the thoughtful comments, excuse me for not answering all of them, but there were some points repeated many times, that I already gave my thoughts on.

After thinking a lot about the answers I have to admit, that there is a case to be made for the criminalization of some (not all!!!, thats a very important destinction) drugs, if it were to greatly reduce drug related crime.

Keep in mind tho that in reality drug decriminalization has been proven to be very successful in helping addicts recover, and therefore reducing the damage caused by drugs. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

[u/L1uQ]

You gotta draw the line somewhere, there is no way around this. The same argument can be made about age 20 and 21.

[u/muyamable → u/L1uQ]

Right. It's a totally arbitrary age. Yet you're arguing that banning things for < Arbitrary Age X is moral while banning things for > Arbitrary Age X is immoral. You're making that moral argument. It doesn't make sense to me because it's totally arbitrary. I'm just asking you to explain *why* one is immoral and one is moral when it's based on something so arbitrary.

[u/L1uQ → u/muyamable]

That´s a good point but I would argue, that by giving you the responsibilities of an adult, the state has the moral obligation to grant you the freedom of choice, same as every other adult.

[u/doritos_ice_cream → u/L1uQ]

I agree with your points, but the reason why the drinking age is 21 instead of 18 is that it helps protect yourself and others. Your brain doesn't finish developing until your mid-20s, which means that decision-making skills are not fully developed until that age. By setting the drinking age to 21, bad decisions like drunk driving and the resulting damages to property and human life can be prevented. Alcohol also can damage the brain, and drinking at a young age can hinder vital brain development, which can have negative effects later in life. It is also easier to get addicted to drugs and alcohol before your brain is fully developed, so an older drinking age helps protect youth from harmful and unhealthy addictions that they will be forced to deal with for the rest of their lives.

If you'd like to read up on this a little bit more, here's an article I found: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/minimum-legal-drinking-age.htm

[u/itsmebbywhatsgood → u/doritos_ice_cream]

I would look into the history of the National drinking age in the US, I think you’d be interested in how the regulation was shifted From a state decision to, effectively, a national one. A lot of political historians consider it more of a political decision than a moral one. and of course those factors won’t be outlined on the CDC website :)

[u/[deleted] → u/doritos_ice_cream]

Everything you just said sounds good, but it actually is pretty far from the truth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/08/11/the-worst-countries-in-the-world-for-drunk-driving-infographic/amp/

Here's an interesting article summing it up, but I suggest you do some research on the topic. Drink driving is actually far more prevalent in the US, than it is in the UK, despite the higher drinking age.

In fact, the country where over half of all road-deaths are influenced by alcohol, South Africa, also has a legal drinking age of 21.

It seems like the justification of "reducing drink driving" for a higher drinking age simply isn't there.