democracy

Amoral Politics: The War on Drugs

war-on-drugs-bannerweb

Do you have morals? Are you a controversy? There’s a bomb on a bus – once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed; if it drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do?

You may have noticed that in the past few decades, the unnecessary fraternising between morality and politics has caused issues such as gay marriage, drug use and abortion to be increasingly politically divisive; wedge issues which serve to create solid voting blocs and neatly carve up the electorate. A functional democracy requires three fundamental imperatives: the basic security of the State, and the preservation of both liberty and individualism. The purpose of this series will be to explore the ways in which moral politics and majority rule contradict these fundamental necessities of the State, restricting liberty, causing harm or marginalisation to minorities, and in some cases increasing societal instability. What follows is a call for the reassertion of amoral politics. With morality and personal opinion removed from the equation, such issues may be considered based on rational consideration of objective data, leading to policies which are truly made in the best interest of the State, and with respect for the individual.

We begin with the War on Drugs. The aim here is not to endorse or denounce drug-users; rather, it is to consider whether drugs are a significant enough societal harm to warrant the interference of the State, to examine the dangers the War on Drugs poses to the security and stability of the State, and to argue that if a drug constitutes no significant danger to others, it is not within the State’s domain to interfere with, and is in fact anti-democratic to do so.  (more…)