In logic there is no relevant difference between legal and currently
illegal drugs. Both are used for pleasure, relief from stress or anxiety, and holidaying from normal life, and both are, in different degrees, dangerous to health. Given this, consistent policy must do one of two things: criminalize the use of nicotine and alcohol, in order to bring them in line with currently illegal substances; or legalize currently illegal substances under the same kind of regime that governs nicotine and alcohol. On civil liberties grounds the latter policy is the preferable one because there is no justification in a good society for policing behavior unless, in the form of rape, murder, theft, riot or fraud, it is intrinsically damaging to the social fabric, and involves harm to unwilling third parties. Good law protects in these respects; bad law tries to coerce people into behaving according to norms chosen by people who claim to know and do better than those for whom they legislate. But the imposition of such norms is an injustice. By all means let the disapprovers argue and exhort; giving them the power to coerce and punish as well is unacceptable. Why a High Society is a Free Society A.C. Grayling Guardian May 19 2002.
(1) In logic there is no relevant difference between legal drugs
(namely nicotine and alcohol) and currently illegal drugs. (2) Both are used for pleasure, relief from stress or anxiety, and holidaying from normal life, and both are, in different degrees, dangerous to health. Given this, (3) consistent policy must do one of two things: [it must] criminalize the use of nicotine and alcohol, in order to bring them in line with currently illegal substances; or [it must] legalize currently illegal substances under the same kind of regime that governs nicotine and alcohol. (4) On civil liberties grounds the latter policy is the preferable one because (5) there is no justification in a good society for policing behavior unless, in the form of rape, murder, theft, riot or fraud, it is intrinsically damaging to the social fabric, and involves harm to unwilling third parties. (6) Good law protects in these respects; bad law tries to coerce people into behaving according to norms chosen by people who claim to know and do better than those for whom they legislate. But (7) the imposition of such norms [chosen by people who claim to know and do better] is an injustice. (8) By all means let the disapprovers argue and exhort; giving them the power to coerce and punish as well is unacceptable.
(1) In logic there is no relevant difference between legal drugs
(namely nicotine and alcohol) and currently illegal drugs. (2) Both are used for pleasure, relief from stress or anxiety, and holidaying from normal life, and both are, in different degrees, dangerous to health. Given this, (3) consistent policy must do one of two things: [it must] criminalize the use of nicotine and alcohol, in order to bring them in line with currently illegal substances; or [it must] legalize currently illegal substances under the same kind of regime that governs nicotine and alcohol. (4) On civil liberties grounds the latter policy is the preferable one because (5) there is no justification in a good society for policing behavior unless, in the form of rape, murder, theft, riot or fraud, it is intrinsically damaging to the social fabric, and involves harm to unwilling third parties. (6) But (7) coercing people into behaving according to norms chosen by people who claim to know and do better than those for whom they legislate is an injustice.
(1) In logic there is no relevant difference between legal drugs
(namely nicotine and alcohol) and currently illegal drugs. (2) Both are used for pleasure, relief from stress or anxiety, and holidaying from normal life, and both are, in different degrees, dangerous to health. Given this, (3) consistent policy must do one of two things: [it must] criminalize the use of nicotine and alcohol, in order to bring them in line with currently illegal substances; or [it must] legalize currently illegal substances under the same kind of regime that governs nicotine and alcohol. (4) Consistent policy must legalize currently illegal substances under the same kind of regime that governs nicotine and alcohol because (5) [there is no justification for criminalizing the use of nicotine and alcohol] because (6) there is no justification in a good society for policing behavior unless, in the form of rape, murder, theft, riot or fraud, it is intrinsically damaging to the social fabric, and involves harm to unwilling third parties. (7) [the use of currently legal drugs, namely nicotine and alcohol, is not something that is both intrinsically damaging to the social fabric and involves harm to unwilling third parties] (8) coercing people into behaving according to norms chosen by people who claim to know and do better than those for whom they legislate is an injustice. (9) [Criminalizing the use of nicotine and alcohol is a form of such coercion]. (2)
(1)
(6) + (7) (8) + (9)
(3) + (5)
(4)
Main Argument in Standard Argument Form (SAF)
1. Both legal drugs (alcohol and nicotine) and currently illegal drugs are used for pleasure, relief from stress or anxiety, and holidaying from normal life, and both are, in different degrees, dangerous to health. 2. > There is no relevant difference between legal drugs (alcohol and nicotine) and currently illegal drugs. (1) 3. > Consistent policy must either criminalize the use of nicotine and alcohol, or legalize currently illegal substances under the same kind of regime that governs nicotine and alcohol. (2) 4. The use of nicotine and alcohol should not be criminalized. 5. > Consistent policy must legalize currently illegal substances under the same kind of regime that governs nicotine and alcohol. (3,4, DS) Two Arguments for 4 1. If there is justification for criminalizing behavior then that behaviour is intrinsically damaging to the social fabric and involves harm to unwilling third parties. 2. The use of nicotine and alcohol is not something that is both intrinsically damaging to the social fabric and involves harm to unwilling third parties. (assumption) 3. > There is no justification for criminalizing the use of nicotine and alcohol (1, 2, MT) 1. Coercing people into behaving according to norms chosen by people who claim to know and do better than those for whom they legislate is an injustice 2. Criminalizing the use of nicotine and alcohol is a form of such coercion (assumption). 3. > Criminalizing the use of nicotine and alcohol is a form of injustice (1, 2) There are still two (harmless) assumptions we have not spelled out. What are they? There is at least one other assumption that is not so harmless. What it 5