After watching parts of the lengthy video featured here, I have been inspired to try to break down as much of Glenn Greenwald’s argument as I possibly can in my spare time. What will follow are a series of short posts that will attempt to examine Greenwald’s argument in as simple a manner as possible.
The following perspectives represent either end of the spectrum on the legalization or–not to be used as a synonym–decriminalization debate surrounding drugs:
(1) the libertarian perspective: that the state is inherently overstepping its bounds by criminalizing something that one should be allowed to put in one’s body
(2) the “moral” perspective: that the state’s responsibility towards maintaining a negative stigma towards drug policy is a moral necessity that must be enforced through the use (or abuse) of our criminal laws
A key flaw in either line of reasoning is the failure to account for the practical effects of decriminalization.
Empirical assumptions, such as the belief that the decriminalization of drugs will increase the use of drugs in every facet of society, are based on little or no evidence. A further flaw in framing of the debate in this fashion, is that any negative consequences in society produced by either drug use or prohibition of drugs are instantly used to dishonestly strengthen the need to further criminalize or limit society’s exposure to drugs (if we decriminalize, there are more drugs, more drugs lead to more problems). One cannot ascribe to violence in Mexico to drug use. Rather, the culprit is prohibition.
The next section of this article will examine the validity of the aforementioned assumption regarding the negative effects of decriminalization.
