A Libertarian Case Against Libertarians
Freedom is not just the ability to make choices. It is the ability to make choices rationally. A person who acts without reasoned deliberation is not truly free. He is not governing himself but is instead being led by impulse or external compulsion. True autonomy requires the capacity for clear thinking, sound judgment, and self-control. Otherwise, what appears to be a free choice is merely the product of impairment rather than self-direction.
This is why drug legalization in the name of freedom is self-defeating. It is like drinking seawater to remedy thirst. Drug use does not expand autonomy; it erodes the very faculties that make it possible. Legalization is often defended on the grounds that, as long as drug use does not harm others, the state has no business interfering with an individual’s free choice to use drugs. But this argument misunderstands what free choice actually is. A person who deliberately impairs his rational faculties is not exercising freedom; he is surrendering it.
The standard case against drug legalization is that it harms society. This, in turn, is met with the familiar libertarian response: “We should have the right to make free choices as long as those choices don’t harm anyone else.” But this rebuttal assumes that drug users are, in fact, exercising rational choice. What if the problem is not merely harm, but the degradation of the very conditions necessary for free choice? A person who willingly compromises his ability to think rationally is not just harming himself; he is eroding his capacity for self-governance. The problem with recreational drug use is not just that it is unhealthy or dangerous. It undermines the very autonomy that makes moral and political freedom meaningful.
Recreational Drug Use and Impaired Mental States
The primary function of psychoactive drugs, at least in their recreational context, is to induce a mental state that is incompatible with the unencumbered exercise of rational agency. Unlike other behaviors that may have unintended side effects on cognition, the primary goal in recreational drug use is to alter one’s consciousness in a way that deviates from proper functioning.
This is true whether the drug in question is alcohol, marijuana, psychedelics, or harder narcotics. Even substances that supposedly “enhance” mental function (such as certain stimulants) often do so at the cost of rational self-regulation, increasing impulsivity and distorting judgment. The more a person relies on artificial chemical alterations to his mind, the less he develops the natural virtues of self-discipline, patience, and prudence that are essential to true autonomy.
Conceiving of drug use as an exercise of freedom is like smashing a compass because you do not like the direction it is pointing. Imagine a traveler who destroys his only navigational tool out of frustration. Instead of gaining control over his journey, he loses his ability to make informed choices and becomes more lost than before.
Likewise, rational thought is the compass that allows individuals to navigate life and exercise meaningful freedom. Drug use does not expand autonomy; it disorients and impairs it. A person who routinely alters his state of consciousness is not exercising greater control over his life; he is surrendering his ability to make rational, well-informed choices. Recreational drug use thus directly attacks the very foundations of responsible citizenship.
This is why the standard libertarian argument collapses. The more individuals use drugs to escape rational agency, the less free they actually become. What begins as an exercise of autonomy ultimately destroys the very thing that makes autonomy meaningful: the ability to think and act rationally.
Of course, not all drug use is recreational. Medical drug use is categorically different, as its purpose is to restore normal function rather than to suppress it. The distinction is not between substances but between intent: a person taking medication to manage pain or treat a condition is not seeking to impair his cognitive faculties, while a person taking drugs recreationally is doing so precisely for that effect. This is why arguments in favor of medical drug use do not apply to the question of recreational legalization. The issue is not the chemical itself but whether it is being used to sustain rational agency or to undermine it.
How Drug Use Turns You into a Slave
The defining feature of slavery is the absence of self-governance. A slave does not act according to his own rational will but is controlled by an external force that dictates his actions. The master determines what he does, where he goes, and how he lives. That is precisely what happens when someone consumes a substance that then overrides their rational faculties. While physical slavery is imposed by another person, chemical slavery is self-imposed. For both, the end result is the same: a loss of autonomy.
A person under the influence of drugs is no longer fully acting according to rational self-direction. His will is hijacked by a foreign chemical influence that suppresses judgment, distorts perception, and overrides impulse control. At that moment, he is not truly free. His actions are dictated by the effects of the substance rather than by reasoned deliberation.
This is not a metaphor. A person in the grip of a mind-altering substance literally loses self-mastery, even if it is just temporarily. The person who becomes addicted to drugs does not simply choose to continue using; his ability to choose is progressively eroded as the drug rewires his brain and makes rational self-control more difficult. At that point, he is no longer the master of his actions—the drug is his master.
John Stuart Mill, who first proposed the “harm principle” favored by many libertarians, recognized that true freedom is not the license to surrender oneself to servitude. As he put it, “The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free.” A person who permanently sells himself into slavery does not exercise freedom. He destroys it. The same applies to someone who voluntarily places himself under the control of a substance that strips away his capacity for self-rule.
If we reject political slavery because it violates autonomy, then we should likewise reject chemical slavery, because it produces the very same result: a person who is ruled by something other than his own rational will. A society that tolerates and normalizes widespread chemical enslavement is not a society that is promoting freedom. It is a society that is manufacturing dependence and self-imposed servitude. The state, therefore, has a responsibility to prevent the proliferation of drug use.
The Overcriminalization Objection
The state has a compelling reason to prevent behaviors that systematically erode the basis of individual rights and self-governance, because once rational agency is compromised, the very foundation of meaningful autonomy collapses. This is why we do not recognize the decisions of those who are severely impaired as legally valid, even when they affect only themselves. It is also why the state may appropriately place suicidal individuals in involuntary psychiatric holds for their own well-being. These restrictions exist not to protect others, but because individual rational agency is the precondition for legitimate decision-making.
This is not an argument for banning every action that carries some degree of risk or harm. It is an argument for restricting behaviors that directly compromise the very faculties that make rational autonomy possible. Recreational drug use falls into this category because its defining feature is the willful suppression of rational agency.
The key distinction is between incidental cognitive effects and deliberate, direct impairment. Many everyday behaviors can have some effect on cognitive function. But these effects are secondary, unintended, or indirect. They do not fundamentally attack the ability to make rational choices in the way that drugs do. A sugar rush may temporarily affect mood or concentration, but it does not override self-governance or sever the ability to distinguish reality from hallucination. A poor diet may lead to long-term health consequences, but it does not systematically suppress rational control.
Recreational drug use, by contrast, is fundamentally about impairing rational agency. Its entire purpose is to chemically override normal cognitive function. The goal is not simply to engage in a pleasurable activity that happens to have side effects; the goal is to alter one’s mental state in a way that directly suppresses rational control. Drug-induced impairment is not just another form of harm. It is a self-inflicted attack on the very faculties that make responsible decision-making possible.
The “Costs of the Drug War” Objection
Another popular argument is that the “War on Drugs” has failed, consuming vast resources while doing little to curb drug use. But this argument conflates specific policy failures with the philosophical question of whether drugs should be legal.
The mere fact that enforcement has costs does not mean prohibition is unjustified. The criminal justice system as a whole is expensive, yet we do not abolish laws simply because enforcing them has high costs. The failure of past policies does not invalidate the principle that the law should restrict self-destructive behaviors that undermine social order.
Furthermore, much of the violence associated with the drug trade stems from demand, not prohibition. Even in places where drugs are legal, criminal enterprises continue to operate. The reality is that drug legalization is not a magic fix that eliminates black markets, nor does it remove the high societal costs of increased addiction and social dysfunction.
What About Alcohol?
Many argue that if we accept the case against drug legalization, then we must also support alcohol prohibition. But this objection fails because it ignores the fundamental distinction between alcohol and recreational drug use.
Recreational drug use is centered around the impairment of rational agency. The goal of getting high is to alter consciousness, suppress inhibitions, and escape reality. This is true regardless of the substance, whether it’s marijuana, psychedelics, or harder narcotics. The level of alteration may vary depending on the substance, but a mental distortion is still a mental distortion.
Alcohol, however, is different. While alcohol abuse can certainly lead to impairment, drinking alcohol is not inherently about inducing a loss of rational control. A person can drink responsibly, remain fully rational, and enjoy alcohol as a complement to social interaction or a meal. By contrast, there is no “responsible” way to use methamphetamine, heroin, or hallucinogens recreationally: their very function is to produce intoxication.
Even marijuana, which is often portrayed as mild and harmless, functions primarily as an intoxicant. Unlike alcohol, which can be consumed in moderation without impairing rational agency, the intended effect of recreational marijuana use is to alter cognition, dull perception, and suppress inhibitions. A person who has a glass of wine with dinner does not necessarily compromise his ability to think clearly, but a person who smokes marijuana does so precisely because of its psychoactive effects. The very reason people use marijuana recreationally is to get high—an effect that, by its nature, diminishes rational self-governance.
Legalization May Be Inevitable, But That Doesn’t Mean It’s Right
Many argue that drug legalization is inevitable, that the tide is turning, and that prohibition will eventually become a relic of the past. That may be true. But inevitability is not the same as moral justification.
Even if drug legalization is on the horizon, we should ask: Is this a direction we actually want to go? Does normalizing recreational drug use make society stronger, freer, and more self-sufficient? Or does it produce a population that is increasingly dependent, dysfunctional, and incapable of self-governance? If the answer is the latter, then legalization is not progress. It is regression.
A Libertarian Case for Rational Self-Governance
Libertarians pride themselves on valuing freedom, but a commitment to freedom also requires a commitment to the conditions that make freedom possible. Recreational drug use actively undermines rational agency, impulse control, and self-governance—the very traits necessary for a free society to function.
Legalizing drug use in the name of autonomy is not just misguided; it is self-defeating. A world where drug use is normalized is a world where fewer people are capable of meaningful self-rule. Freedom is not just about removing restrictions. It is about ensuring that individuals retain the capacity to govern themselves responsibly.
Image Credit: Unsplash
