Thinking About Drug Bans

A new study published in the UK ranks drugs based on the harm they do to oneself and to others; the results are somewhat counterintuitive, and might lead to some controversial changes in the way we view drug policies. Alcohol, for example, is by far the most harmful drug to others, and quite high up in terms of damage caused to the self. To what degree should we re-think our legislation on drugs?

To answer this question it is important to determine what the role of drug policy is in the first place: is it to regulate the harm we do to ourselves, to others, or both? 

That we should control drugs in terms of the damage they cause others is relatively uncontroversial, at least in principle. When one of our actions causes damage to somebody else, we open ourselves up to regulation or punishment. All sorts of activities are controlled by the government in this way, to little controversy: drunk driving laws, smoking laws, and (more obviously) laws against directly harming others follow this rationale. 

The degree of harm to others caused by alcohol appears to be sufficient for heightened regulation, particularly considering that other drugs do not cause comparable damage when it comes to injury and economic cost (breakdown below). In terms of overall damage caused to others, no drug is even half as harmful on this analysis.

It is one thing to say that we should be stricter on alcohol, but what about our views on other drugs? Alcohol again ranks near the top of damage to ourselves, though it ranks lower on some specific areas of damage, like dependence or impairment of mental functioning (see below). 

To what degree, though, is the government supposed to step in to prevent us from harming ourselves? This clearly depends on the type of activity that is concerned. At least three different kinds of self-harming activities exist, and our attitudes toward them are different. 

First, consider the 'sin taxes'. Cigarette taxation is a good example: though to some degree we limit the use of cigarettes out of concern for those around smokers, there is another important component. We discourage smoking because, although it is pleasurable in the short-term, it is a very poor health decision in the long-run. President Obama, for instance, recently upped the cigarette tax from around $1 to around $2 per pack. The rationale is clear: smoking causes people enormous harm; smoke taxation clearly reduces the number of smokers; smoke taxation thus reduces harm in the population. This policy is relatively uncontroversial, paternalistic though it is. It is clear, however, that a cigarette ban would not be so warmly received; we draw a line on state paternalism at some point.

Next, consider the recently invalidated soda legislation passed by mayor Bloomberg in New York City. The law prevented restaurants from serving sugary drinks above 16 ounces. It did not prevent people from purchasing several drinks or from getting refills, but simply limited serving size. Bloomberg was not even preventing individuals from partaking in an activity they found enjoyable in order to lead them  to a better long-run outcome. Instead he was making a basically neutral short-run change that would encourage a drastically different long-run outcome. People, however, place enough intrinsic value on their freedom – even to make bad choices – that 60 percent of NYC residents opposed it.

Last, consider highly risky sports. Perhaps counterintuitively, cheerleading leads to two-thirds of catastrophic injuries among high school students. A number of proposals, from better supervision to more training, have come out of the startling statistics, but bans have yet to be considered. Why is this? One explanation is that the potential harm that comes out of cheerleading, skydiving, car racing, or other potentially life-threatening sports is different: those participating, even before becoming involved in the sport, are fully aware of the long-run consequences and willing to live with them. The joy of the sport overrides the potential for disaster.

Which of these is most similar to engaging in the consumption of drugs? Even those causing harm almost exclusively to the user – consider methamphetamine, ecstasy, or LSD – are harshly regulated. It is telling that an outright ban is not popular in any of the above scenarios: what makes drugs so different? Perhaps the harm that comes to the user is more immediate than the harm from smoking or obesity; is this a real reason to legislate differently on it? 

Other countries – Portugal comes to mind – have successfully de-criminalized the use of drugs that carry heavier stigmas. Perhaps it is time for us to consider the same: if we consider the effects done to ourselves, alcohol is high on the list of drugs to be banned; if we take into account the damage to others, it is by far the worst. Whatever approach we take, it may be time to re-consider our relatively friendly stance on alcohol.