Murder by law

Introduction and summary

In addition to the thousands killed,
hundreds of thousands of drug suspects
have been imprisoned.

According to "Philippines drug war: Do we know how many have died?" there is enormous controversy not only over how many thousands of suspected drug users and dealers have been killed illegally by police in the Philippines under the drug war launched President Rodrigo Duterte after his election in 2016, but also whether drug use and dealing should even be a criminal matter. The vice-president of the Philippines, who is elected independently of the president, and human rights groups argue that drug use is a health issue not a criminal matter, which makes the president's drug war morally wrong in principle.

____________________________________ 

Response: What is your opinion?

Duterte, like Thaksin Shinawatra and
other politcal populists, wants to
kill dealers of drugs he does not like

I chose this article, which reminded me of the equally ugly war on drugs led by Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from 2003, because it seems to me a powerful example of how the law can be used to commit a well-intentioned act that is morally bad. The article only hints at it, but President Duterte's war against drugs in the Philippines is also very popular, as was Thaksin Shinawatra's war against drugs in Thailand. Similarly, American Presidents from Nixon on have proposed popular wars agaisnt drugs to win votes, and the truly sad thing is that they are popular with the voters.  Of course, they only want to kill people who use some drugs: the most harmful drug to society is alcohol, which is far worse even than heroin, but these same populist politicians are happy to allow and to use the drug alcohol.

These wars against drugs are a great wrong, and show why democracy must be much more than a majority deciding the rule of law for a nation by voting. First, the Philippines' vice-president is right that Duterte's war on drugs is a failure. Thaksin's war on drugs was also a failure that killed thousands of Thai citizens, many of whom might have been entirely innocent of the drug crimes that the killers, typically police, said they were guilty of. Their guilt is not known because instead of being proved in a court of law, they were shot. There is no evidence that wars on drugs reduce drug use. Drug use continues high in the Philippines. Drug use continued high in Thailand under Thaksin. Drug use continued high in China when opium was banned. Alcohol use continued high in the US when it was made illegal. When the sale and use of anything very popular, and drugs are popular, is made illegal, it means that the national economy loses because taxes cannot be collected. And the police, prisons and so on are very expensive as well as useless. And the health harms to society are worse because the drug users cannot get help. And the prices of drugs are higher, so crime increases when the drugs are made illegal. All of these bad effects on society are shown around the world when a popular drug is made illegal.

But criminalizing popular drugs does help two groups in society: it is very good for mafia gangs and for corrupt officials who are paid very well to help the mafia gangs make money. These are the only two groups who benefit when a popular drug, whether yaa baa, or marijuana, or alcohol, or heroin or whatever is made illegal. I cannot understand why so many people are so eager to help mafia gangs and corrupt officials to get rich by banning drugs that adults want to use for fun.

We also have to ask what justifies any legal ban. I agree with the moral philosopher John Stuart Mill that the only just reason to ban anything for adults is to protect other people from harm. This means that alcohol must be legal because although alcohol is a very harmful drug of addiction, if it only harms the user who drinks wine, whisky or beer, that is their business. But if they drive a car, then they threaten other people, so drinking and driving should be illegal. The same is true of every other popular drug, almost all of which are in fact less harmful than alcohol. It is only harm to others that can justly be made illegal, and even if a majority vote for something, that does not make it right. It just means that the majority is morally wrong. This is why a democracy needs a strong constitution to stop the majority committing a great moral wrong that is popular.

I think this is controversial and that makes it an interesting topic to discuss. I look forward to seeing whether you agree with me and the Philippines' vice-president or with Thaksin and Duterte.

____________________________________ 

Question for your classmates

Should the sale and use of any drugs be legal or illegal for adults? 

____________________________________ 

My summary is 101 words. It took me a four revisions to get it right. 
The response is 667 words and was much easier to write.