The Application of Social Contract Theory to Drug Legalisation

Is that in the contract?

How do we know what is right and what is wrong? Studies have shown that we come into this world with an innate, raw sense of what behavior should be rewarded and what behavior should be punished. As we mature, society refines these senses as we learn the expectations of social norms. Our persona soon becomes a mixture of our genetically determined personality and the conformation that is required for an ideal life. This “conformation” is usually never questioned; as our critical necessity to be part of a society leaves us only with the choice to accept its moral obligations.

It is the signing of these “social contracts” that allows society as a whole to maintain stability and direction, with a purpose to benefit each individual member of it as well. The social contract theory is defined as the belief that there must be a universal consensus on what is accepted in the interest of morality, in order for a society to be formed.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified writer

Proficient in: Contract

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

A social contract theorist recognizes distinctions in what falls under the social contract, and what falls under the laws set up by the government. Government made laws are often authorized as a result of a situational issue. These laws are concrete and are much easier to be passed than overruled. The absolute nature of government laws paint the world as a society in which the government has dictated a new, enhanced social contract. Here lies the problem; the social contract can never be enhanced, because it is meant to represent simple, timeless concepts that build the only necessary foundation for society and its individuals to thrive.

The government should only carry intentions to articulate the ideas of the social contract, but it has managed to dilute the fundamental ideas with multiple laws that have led to wasteful use of resources and time.

Now think about the war on drugs. The number one goal of the war on drugs is to eliminate illegal drug trade. Why is the drug trading illegal? Because it involves drugs that have been prohibited. Who prohibited the drugs? The same government that is fighting this war on drugs. As our citizens’ lives are being lost in the same persistent crimes within and outside of our country, we are putting so much effort into trying to stop a problem that we ourselves are responsible for. It should also be mentioned that many of these violent crimes, particularly in poor neighborhoods across the country, are being committed in relation to the illegal distribution of drugs. College-age men and women go to shady, distrustful drug dealers to purchase molly, not knowing it was laced with cocaine making death by overdose inevitable. With every passing day our culture is becoming more and more accepting of marijuana, yet there are people serving life sentences in prison because they were caught with possession of it.

The biggest takeaway from these happenings across society is that no matter what, people are going to do drugs if they want to. Humans have been getting high since the beginning of time and don’t plan to stop until the end. Similar to the agreements of the social contract, drug use has always existed, therefore it will continue to exist forever. Prohibiting drugs only makes it tougher for drug users to get what they want, so they have no choice but to turn to the black market. Drug lords recognize how high the demand of drugs is despite their prohibition. Much of the violence and criminal activity associated with illegal drugs are due to the operation of the black market in which they are sold, not the drugs themselves. Also existing are health concerns not even directly associated with prohibited drugs. For example, the government’s opposal means that heroin users are more likely to be exposed to contaminated needles, creating the risk of contracting HIV or Hepatitis C.

The problems stemming from the prohibition of drugs all have something to do with the working black market. When one thinks of illegal drug use they think of developing addictions. However, there are also moderate users of these drugs. People also carry the risk of becoming addicted to their prescribed medications. These drugs are FDA approved and doctor recommended, yet there is still a chance for addiction. Our society rightfully has many effective rehabilitation clinics to help those suffering from addiction, to legal and illegal drugs. Therefore, the government is acknowledging that even though there is a law against certain drugs, people will do them anyway. Illicit drug addicts not only deal with psychological and health related problems, but they are furthermore alienated from society with all of the legal ramifications they could possibly face.

As a social contract theorist, I believe that society should be run on the universal concept of morality. Our parents tell us this as four year olds “treat others the way you want to be treated”. This one sentence sums up the entire social contract. Many laws are specific articulations of this concept, but the prohibition of drugs is of no relation. If it was, the contract might read “treat others the way they treat themselves”. In what way would that concept lead to a constructive society? Due to illegality many drugs have not been significantly studied to determine clear consequences, but at absolute worst, an illicit drug user is seriously harming themselves. Nobody is harming them, and they are not harming anybody else. This fact alone is compatible with the social contract, therefore there should not be a law against the behavior. The government is punishing people for doing something that does not harm anybody. In effect, people are being harmed. Does that really make sense?

I expect that many would disagree with my argument, saying that legalizing all drugs will lead to much more dangerous activity, and disorder among our obligations in society. However, I am not stating that drugs should be legalized for everybody and anybody. Alcohol is a drug that is potentially very dangerous, yet it is a vital part of the American culture. We have created practical restrictions on alcohol use. The age restriction does not allow those considered not responsible enough to consume alcoholic beverages, and drunk driving is strictly prohibited. Drinking while working a job carries a high risk of losing that job. All of these laws and expectations have been set to prohibit use in certain conditions that impairment could have dangerous consequences. Similarly, if all drugs are legal they must have specific conditional laws to preserve the safety and productivity of our society.

If the government were to legalize all drugs, they must regulate the production and distribution of them. There is much more incentive for a drug user to buy their drugs from the government, therefore the black market would all but diminish. The only problems that would exist after legalization would be between the drug user and the drug. Without what appears to be a stigma against illegal drugs, the government could put this entire issue behind them which indefinitely helps the cohesion of society. Hundreds to thousands of people die every year from drowning in swimming pools and collision accidents in activities such as biking, skiing, and non-alcohol related driving. Bikes, skis, swimming pools, and of course cars haven’t been banned due to this risk, because the danger results from misuse and irresponsibility. The benefits and satisfaction gained certainly outweigh the potential costs. So many people would not willingly go out of their way to consume illegal drugs if they got nothing out of it. If nothing else, they are expressing their individuality and free will as a member of society. A social contract theorist can recognize that drug prohibition not only fails to enforce the social contract, but violates it through the aftermath of enforcing the law. Only when we live in a society based on the core values of universal morality and not the manufactured laws of the government can we live an optimal life.