Content area
Full text
Abstract
The state has an interest in protecting the ability of its citizens to act freely in pursuit of the good life. Psychoactive drugs that negatively affect one's cognitive capacities conflict with this goal by undermining the conditions needed for free action. Accordingly, the state has an interest in legally prohibiting certain classes of drugs, including marijuana.
Introduction
Marijuana is a performance-degrading drug. It suppresses cognition and memory, alters judgement, impairs motor coordination, negatively alters brain development, and exacerbates mental health problems.1 These findings are overwhelmingly supported by the medical literature.2 In light of these facts, the contention of this paper is that marijuana should be legally prohibited.3
My argument against marijuana legalization is simple: the state has an interest in protecting the conditions for individual liberty. Psychoactive drugs that negatively affect one's cognitive capacities conflict with this goal by undermining the conditions required for free action. Accordingly, the state has an interest in legally prohibiting certain classes of psychoactive drugs, including marijuana and other cognition-disrupting substances.
The thrust of the argument is that marijuana legalization is incompatible with individual liberty. In that respect, the argument might be characterized as a libertarian argument for drug prohibition although its conception of individual liberty differs sharply from libertarians in a number of key ways.
After setting out the main argument in detail, I canvas a variety of objections that may be levelled against it. These include objections from bodily autonomy, the failure of alcohol prohibition, coercive paternalism, and the putative medical benefits of marijuana.
The Argument Against Marijuana Legalization
We can frame the argument against marijuana legalization as follows:
1. If the state has an interest in protecting individual liberty, then the state has an interest in protecting the conditions for individual liberty.
2. If the state has an interest in protecting the conditions for individual liberty, then it has an interest in restricting substances that impair, destroy, or otherwise frustrate these conditions.
3. If the state has an interest in restricting substances that impair, destroy, or otherwise frustrate the conditions for individual liberty, then it has an interest in restricting marijuana.
4. The state has an interest in protecting individual liberty.
5. Therefore, the state has an interest in restricting marijuana.
Key to the argument...