The potential legalization of drugs raises several ethical issues, particularly the question of harm and addiction. While drugs can hurt the individual who takes them, people have free will and the right to choose for themselves. As long as there are no negative externalities and the freedom and rights of an unwilling third party are not harmed, drug use can be ethical as it is the individual’s choice. Drug use should be legalized as long as it does not harm a third party, despite some philosophies arguing that self-control is vital for ethical behavior.
Defending a Position
The use of drugs is not exclusively connected with healing intentions, but with the way to feel new sensations and other spiritual attributes developed from some ideological subcultures, such as Hippies. Moreover, the dilemma of drug legalization is a particularly topical and vital subject because advocating for one position or another has financial and socio-political implications. However, the issue is also morally relevant, as individuals debate whether the legalization of drugs is ethical. The ethical argument defending a position of drug legalization is related to the freedom of choice. While some drugs might affect an individual’s ability to operate, this does not mean that it is unethical. Thus, if a person chooses to have a shorter life, but the use of drugs gives this individual an ultimate pleasure, while not harming other people, it is their right to do so. The individual is free to decide whether they prefer a healthy and long life or a shorter one.
The Argument against the Position
In contrast, the classical Stoic philosopher, Markus Aurelius, in his book, argues that the individual, to be good, must comply with ethical standards and keep their judgment and perception clear. Anything that interferes with clear-mindedness should be avoided (Aurelius and Hays 101). Drugs are a mind-altering substance, the legalization of which is likely to increase their use among the population. This would go against the core tenets of stoicism, as the philosophy values self-control, rationality, and clear-mindedness (Aurelius and Hays 69). Furthermore, stoicism argues that addiction limits the individual from both happiness and ethical behavior, as both of the attributes mentioned above only come through discipline (Aurelius and Hays 28). Therefore, drug use goes against the core tenants of stoicism and limits people’s ability to self-develop and live good lives, which would indicate that drug use should be illegal.
Defending the Position against the Argument
The argument that self-control leads to ethical behavior is based on the assumption that human perception is perfectly rational. However, applying the stoics’ logic to other aspects of life reveals inconsistencies. While drug use is mind-altering, it is arguable that so is hunger, nostalgia, and even love. All of these aspects influence and skew human perception. The result is that only a remote, ascetic lifestyle can be ethical. I believe this narrow definition of ethical behavior is incompatible with human nature as well. Furthermore, it goes against the individual’s right and ability to choose for themselves (Estevez et al. 29). The freedom of choice remains vital, while the negative consequences of drugs, as long as they are localized to the consenting user, are not ethical issues.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the legalization of drugs has been a philosophical question of applied ethics for centuries. Some ancient thinkers, such as Markus Aurelius and other Stoics, believe that self-control is the only acceptable ethical guideline for successful and happy lives. However, my argument presents an alternative ethical position on the issue of drug legalization, where personal freedom is more critical than the need for clear-mindedness.
References
Estevez, Ailén, et al. “Current Approaches and Controversies: Legalization and Non,-Legalization of Drugs.” International Journal of Health & Medical Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 26-32, Web.
Marcus, Aurelius, and Gregory Hays. Meditations. New York: Modern Library, 2002. Print.