At 32%, what is marketed as the world’s strongest beer has just been released. As per its label:

This is an extremely strong beer; it should be enjoyed in small servings and with an air of aristocratic nonchalance. In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost.

Beautiful. I’m interested in how this plays out in the political arena. Though a case can perhaps be made for controlling drugs that are unsafe to use, it is clearly a sign of incoherent policy-makers to allow drinks that are significantly above 32%, but not beer. At 30 pounds ($50) the 330ml bottle and with marketing that tells us how it’s made to be savoured, the customers are certain to drink it at least as responsibly as they would drink whiskey, and probably more so than the Jack Daniel’s that gets chugged at college parties. And yet, the same company was previously challenged for having too strong a beer. It won, but that was with a 18.2% beer; now that they have almost doubled the strength, there are some things left to unfold.

But even if it might be used in irresponsible manners that are not possible without such strong beers on the market, is it really the responsibility of government to protect us from our own choices? This is where the problem of self-ownership arises: can we talk of “self-ownership” and if so, to which degree should this exist? Alcohol laws are an example of the government intervening between people who wish to trade alcohol, for the sake of protecting the consumer from his own choices. It is almost universally accepted that it is righteous to use force against someone who uses undue force towards another, but what about when the person harms no one, except perhaps — just perhaps — himself?

There exists a few arguments that flow against the idea of absolute self-ownership, but the most important one is about our duty towards others. It is easy to claim that we are masters of ourselves, but if that is true, then what can be said of individual who takes a walk and comes across a dying man. With a cellphone in his pocket, does he have a moral duty to call the police? Do we, as a society, have the right to use force against him if he does not help that person? This alone would imply that we can not speak of self-ownership in absolute terms. However, by opening this door, we allow a variety of problems to surface: do we have a duty to help others and how does this duty extend itself to different problems?

I would say that we do have a duty towards others. Forcing a person to at least call the police if his information can clearly be of assistance seems like a minimum. It also seems right to expect a certain redistribution of wealth to ensure that people can only fall so low; yes, even if they engender their own problems, we must help them at least to some extent.

How can this be justified? I’m not sure that it can. It is possible to highlight inconsistencies within a person’s ideology, but differences between people can boil down simply to values. It would seem like vilification to claim that those who believe in absolute self-ownership simply have no empathy towards others; they will often argue that though force can not be used against us so that we help others, that we have the choice to help others and people who believe in absolute self-ownership may very well be more inclined to give to charity (I would be interested in such a survey).

This said: how should we deal with alcohol? Those who believe that we have a duty towards others might tend towards utilitarianism, so we can ask: which drug policy would lead to the greatest happiness? Well, in terms of consistency, it is clear that alcohol can not remain legal while marijuana remains criminal.

If we push things further than consistency: not only do we have self-ownership arguments in favour of drug legalisation, but we have utilitarian arguments as well: the criminalization of drugs funds criminal organizations rather than businessmen bound by the rule of law or even the government, via the kind of taxes on alcohol and tobacco; it discourages people from being public about their problems; it leads people who only harm themselves to suffer even more, by placing them into jail, harming their chances at employment and so forth; it leads to drugs of dubious quality, since coca leaves and opium poppy flowers are turned into the concentrates of cocaine and heroin, which are definitively stronger and they are too often either or both unpredictable and mixed with dangerous substances; and let’s not forget the violence that such bans create in drug-producing countries such as Mexico, Colombia, Afghanistan and so forth.

For me, the debate is more between treating drugs like we treat apples — absolute self-ownership in the face of drugs — and having a paternalistic approach that is at least sensible to reason. We could have all the advantages of banning drugs, without many of the most severe disadvantages. For example, special taxes can be imposed upon drugs; we can have tax-funded programs to educate people and help those with problems; we can ban the marketing of these products. I can not imagine a single (potential) advantage of drug prohibition that can not be achieved through other means.

These two paths are to me too distinct for one to seem more “true”, “just” and “right” than the other, though it is clear that treating drugs like apples is, at the very least, an eccentric idea in today’s society. And such legal experimentation would be very risky. But, at the very least, I find it fair and reasonable to conclude that if the government is to be paternalistic in its approach to drugs, it could do so in a more effective and just manner within a framework where drugs are legal, though controlled as we control alcohol and tobacco, the two drugs that pose the greatest problems to our societies.

-Dussault

1 Comment »

1. [...] Drugs: paternalistic government or absolute self-ownership? [...]

   Pingback by Neoliberalism: The Misunderstood Ideology (assuming it exists). | Montreal Philosophy — March 2, 2010 @ 5:13 PM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website