The Zero Aggression Principle says. . .
No one should initiate harm against another, or delegate doing so to others.
Harm includes violence and fraud. The key word is initiation. Violence should be defensive only.
Do you agree with the Zero Aggression Principle? Should The State use violence against you for your unhealthy habits or pleasures?
Does the Zero Aggression Principle apply to drug use? Do you think it’s moral to initiate violence to prevent other people from using substances of which you personally disapprove? In other words, do you favor drug prohibition?
If you do oppose drug prohibition . . .
Please formally withdraw your consent from The State’s violent drug prohibition policies. You can do that using the checklist at right.
Remember: The politicians rely on your consent for their actions. They presume to have your consent, so you must actively withdraw it. Each person who Denies Consent causes state initiated violence to lose legitimacy. This is a key step toward creating a society that honors the Zero Aggression Principle.
If you do favor drug prohibition (or if you’re unsure) . . .
Please pause and imagine the following situation. Try to be honest with yourself. What would you really do in the following case?
If violent drug prohibition was a service that you could freely buy, or not buy, how would you behave?
What would you really do if The State no longer threatened you with violent harm for refusing to fund drug prohibition?
Would you really write a check each month to pay the costs of enforcing drug prohibition, or would you use that money for something you value more?
You clearly support violent drug prohibition very strongly. Please consider publicly declaring this fact using the “I Disagree” tab at right. Or . . .
You can change any of your previous answers at any time. If you decide to oppose violent drug prohibition please use the checklist at right to deny your consent. Or . . .
If you’re willing to consider further arguments about why violent drug prohibition is a bad product, please ponder the following . . .
Since you find yourself uncertain we hope you’ll ponder the arguments we make below. We encourage you to think about violent drug prohibition as if it were a product or service being offered for sale in the free market. Is it really a product you want to buy?
Remember, you can change any of your previous answers at any time. If you decide to oppose violent drug prohibition please use the checklist at right to deny your consent.
Is drug prohibition really a good product?
Why do people favor drug prohibition? The most common answer seems to be some version of the following . . .
If drugs were freely available more people would use them, leading to more use, addiction, and crime.
This was once an understandable concern, but is it still? Doesn’t Portugal’s experience refute the fear?
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, including cocaine and heroin. Drug use did NOT rise. It fell!
Portuguese drug use is lower than in the rest of Europe. The number of problematic addicts in Portugal has fallen by half since the 1990s. Infections and crimes related to black market drug use have also plummeted.
Does this real-world example influence your thinking? We ask you to reconsider the crucial question . . .
What would you really do if The State no longer threatened you with violent harm for refusing to fund drug prohibition? Would you really write a check each month to pay the costs of enforcing drug prohibition, or would you use that money for something you value more?
Maybe you still think drug prohibition is a good product. Please consider that we also have our own experience with legalized drugs here in America. Rates of alcohol use and abuse have declined over the past three decades without the need for a prohibition law.
The same has happened with another highly dangerous and addictive drug – tobacco.
Consider the question again. Is drug prohibition really a good product? Would you really voluntarily write a check to pay for it?
We usually judge products by how well they work. Why should we judge drug prohibition by a different standard? Does drug prohibition really do anything for you that’s worth the cost? Consider this evidence . . .
In 2006 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs, the same as in 1970 when the War on Drugs began, and the same as in 1914 when the first federal drug laws were passed.
In other words, drug abuse has remained constant, with or without drug prohibition. Why are you willing to pay for a product that achieves nothing?
When you imagine writing that check to pay for violent drug prohibition It’s important to realize how big the costs really are. The check you write must include a huge sum for . . .
Use the form at right to send your elected representatives a letter about this issue. It's easy!
We provide the first few words of the letter so that Congressional offices will see the most important point right at the start, and so that no one can hijack our system for another purpose. Here's the part we provide . . .