Saving us from ourselves

No one doubts the good intentions of the powers that be when they ban substances for the public good. But at what point do such bans become a paternalistic encroachment on individuals’ rights to choose? Anna Nuzum argues that party pill and other bans go too far, and lead to dangers that may be even worse than the problems they seek to address.

-----

Since the dawn of time young people have disappointed their elders. Each generation has been more rebellious, more outrageous, and more in need of a hard day’s work than any other generation in history. Around 700 BC, Hesiod wrote, “I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint.”

New Zealand has not escaped this phenomenon. The young are often portrayed as out of control; boy racers, drug takers, out all hours – not like in the ‘good old days’.

Political figures exploit two commonly held truths. The first is that most young people don’t vote; a mere quarter of 18 year olds bother. The second is that their parents, grandparents and people in Talkback Land think there is a real chance life as we know it will end if we allow things to continue as they are.

So when drug issues are legislated, too often a fear of the unknown drives politicians and lawmakers, rather than respect for the choices of individuals. This applies especially to young people, who are regarded as naïve and lacking the wisdom of age.

Party pills are the latest political football to be kicked around. Isolated cases of people mixing party pills with massive quantities of alcohol, or taking them in handfuls, have been displayed as evidence they are dangerous. Taking a packet of paracetamol with a bottle of vodka would have equally damaging consequences. In fact, mixing anything with large quantities of alcohol is very likely to go wrong. However that’s an argument for prohibition of alcohol – not for banning party pills.

To be taken seriously, supporters of the ban on party pills should be consistent and support banning alcohol and cigarettes too. If they truly think individuals are incapable of making a responsible decision and must be protected from themselves, that’s where they should start. To take away the rights of an individual to act as they please just to bump up a poll rating or remove a miniscule chance of harm, smacks of the slippery slope to paternalism.

John Stuart Mills said, “Over one’s mind and over one’s body the individual is sovereign.” Too often the dubious logic of ‘one-thing-leading-to-another’ is applied and all of a sudden the sovereignty of an individual’s choices about their own body is dismissed.

Government policy should start with the basic right of every person to choose how they live their own life. This right should be absolute as long as it doesn’t impinge on other people’s lives. If a substance is so dangerous to society, so likely to cause immediate and long-term harm to a massive number of people, and unable to be controlled in any other way, that is the only time prohibition should be the preferred solution.

Alcohol and cigarettes are never seriously considered for prohibition because they are socially ingrained. They are consumed by a wide cross-section of society which includes our lawmakers. And we benefit from the laws they make. Legislation and regulations enable control over quality, price and supply. If substances are driven underground, manufacture is taken away from businesses that can be monitored, and placed into the hands of criminals, where the same safeguards cannot be maintained. The risk then becomes vulnerable individuals being sold dubious substitutes such as the ‘bathtub gin’ of the American prohibition era.

Making policy decisions on the basis of principles means that rights of individuals are better protected from the cheap politicking of tragedies. Too often high profile cases are exploited by lobby groups for their own ends, and the emotion of individual cases becomes unnecessarily involved in decision making around an issue. Personal feelings and experiences have a place, but they should not dictate how others live.

The microchipping of dogs was a perfect example of this. A young girl was seriously injured by a dog and ‘something had to be done.’ This something manifested itself as small identifying microchips inserted under the skin of dogs. The microchips have not prevented dog attacks; they simply saved time in identifying the owners.

Time should be taken when coming up with solutions to ensure they fit the harm we want to prevent. Too often the blunt instrument of banning a substance or preventing younger New Zealanders from using it is the only proposed solution. Education is more effective than most people think. The gruesome drink driving ads I remember seeing as an Intermediate student terrified me. Later, at high school, my peer group took seriously the need to have a sober driver with us.

The campaign against party pills has been successful, and the issue is now done and dusted. New Zealanders, many of whom were probably uncertain about what these pills were, can breathe a sigh of relief. Forget allowing people to make their own choices – another scourge of society has been locked away in the back of the cupboard with its child-safety cap on.

• Anna Nuzum is a fourth year History and Politics student at Victoria University. She is a member of the Young Nats and Blue Libs.