When you speak of rights, you are speaking morally. There is no eluding the underlying morality of the law. Even when we posit that the law exists for social order, it means that we find social order desirable, and are willing to impose it on others......
Drug laws came into effect with an increase in pharmacological knowledge and a more widespread distribution of certain substances, so that the perception of the substances in question as being benign changed. Up until the '80s, it was still widely believed that cocaine was not addictive, which was erroneous. When heroin was introduced, it was supposed to be a safe morphine substitute, and it took a few years for them to realize that it was, in fact, much more addictive. Only a minority of drinkers become alcoholics, it is impossible to become a regular user of opiates without addiction, and the problems of escalating tolerance and dosage. By the way, since there was a constitutional amendment permitting prohibition, it was ipso facto not unconstitutional, even if it were unwise. Every time the government upholds one position over another in contention, someone's freedom is curtailed. The question is whether the reason is sufficient.....
I am ambivalent about anti-trust. I do not think that companies should be penalized for success, but there are predatory business practices that eliminate competition unfairly, such as underpricing merely to drive a competitor out of business. The question seems to me to be prudential: to what extent can we do more good than harm through anti- trust intervention? I am not sure of the answer..... |
