I’d like to start a discussion on the nature of law, social liberties/ freedom and drugs.

The law tends to blanket ban substances that it deems harmful or unsuitable for consumption by the general population. Yet, in some instances (such as tobacco and alcohol), despite the very obvious and clear evidence that these substances are invariably harmful to health, legislation permits their use.

I cannot help but be confounded by the gross contradiction that exists surrounding drug use for recreational purposes. It seems we have a mish-mash of opposing statements going on with regards to what is safe and what is not.

I’ve always been a strong believer in the allowance of maximal social liberty, but, that is no less underpinned by good education, awareness, vocalised public health concern/ fair warning and supportive infrastructure for those that are unable to steer clear of abusive relationships with drugs. That is to say, I believe the vast majority should be allowed to explore and consume what they wish as long as the necessary protective supports are in place to make that exploration as safe as possible.

A country that would exemplify such a view is Portugal. Portugal decriminalised most drug use and instead focused on rehabilitation and drug awareness services rather than penalty and social ostracism for their uncontrolled use. In Portugal an addict is not seen as a criminal but rather a person suffering a medical illness or drug dependence just as obesity is seen as a non criminal abuse of food intake, or sexual addiction a non criminal issue of libido.

The reason for my liberal outlook is that global society as a whole deems it reasonably acceptable to use alcohol and tobacco - the most socially/ health damaging drugs in existence but criminalises much less potent and damaging alternatives such as marijuana and psychedelics.

If we were to objectively classify drug legality based on harm, the first to be made illicit would be alcohol and tobacco. Their use is widespread and their impact on public health gravely more vast than any other substance.

However, the true nature of the argument is quite complex. Especially when we consider the line between prescription drugs and over the counter drugs. It is understood that the potential for abuse or harm for many prescription drugs deems them only suitable when applied by health professionals. If we were to legalise the recreational use of drugs then morphine, barbiturates and antidepressants would lend themselves to inevitable abuse by the public due to their addictive nature.

So all in all, while it is likely that most people would be able to willingly control their use of many currently illegal substances within a range considered responsible and functional, it is the fear generated by those cases that ruin lives that invoked the law, and forces its hand to oppress personal freedoms with regard to consumption of drugs.

So in essence, does legislation need reform? Is there a better way to allow people to safely use drugs? Or should they remain criminalised? And if so, what must be said of alcohol use or smoking?