Before to speak actually about a substantiation of legalization of drugs, it is necessary to make small travel into area of the mathematical logic, concerning the method of the proof.
As all well-known, renowned detective Sherlok Holmes without ceremony opened any, even the most confused crime. He explained a secret of the success that he himself has developed and used certain "a deductive method". Actually a deductive method we hardly shall apply in criminalistics – meanwhile it seriously use only in the exact sciences – in the mathematics and the physics - and no more anywhere.
Deduction is a method of the logic proof which essence consists in the following: first initial statements which are considered true always (them are name axioms in theories), and consequences (theorem) are deduced from these axioms by means of laws of logic. Such movement - from the GENERAL (axioms) to private (theorems) - is logically faultless: the truth of premises and correctly made argument always guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
In particular, in geometry use deduction at proofs of geometrical theorems. We shall notice, a basis of all geometry make the set about of 20 axioms - are statements of type: "through two points it is possible to draw a straight line and besides only one" or "there is at least one point which is not laying on the given straight line" and to that similar. Leaning on these axioms, we take from them vast quantity of the diversified private consequences (theorems), for example: "triangles are equal, if two sides at them and a corner between them are equal", or "the square of a hypotenuse is equal to the sum of squares of cathetuses". It is important to note, that we learn these statements not from experience at all (i.e. nobody makes any meterings of corners and distances) – but by pure logic reasonings. And what is surprising – in practice these logic conclusions prove to be true always.
Unfortunately, the deductive method practically is not used outside mathematics and physics though only it can guarantee absolute logical rigor at proofs of any statements, it is unimportant from what area.
As a rule, people poorly know deduction and consequently quite often suppose logic mistakes in reasonings. Perhaps, one of the most widespread logic mistakes – actually abundance of reasons. There it is as follows. Wishing to convince the opponent, the person tries to result as much as possible arguments in favour of the proved thesis, considering a question from the diversified points of view (economic, morality, political, medical, etc.) - however from the point of view of logic the quantity of reasons has no value: it is enough to find only ONE, but correct argument that the statement taken reliably for granted. Alas, usually in debates do not trouble itself with searches of correct argument, and lean on quantity.
Other most widespread logic mistake is a generalization, when the special case (fact) is generalized on the GENERAL state of things. For example, from the true private statement "in Holland easy drugs are permitted and there all is well" does not follow at all the validity of the generalizing statement "in ANY country all will be well, it necessary only to legalize easy drugs" for the private fact can serve as a bright example, but in any way not the proof. But the finding only one private fact can deny any GENERAL logical statement, which is not corresponding with this fact. For example, the GENERAL logical statement "if in the country (ANY) to legalize drugs - that society degrade" - it is denied completely by the private fact "in Holland easy drugs are permitted, but a society there does not degrade".
Sometimes happens, that in the thick of heated arguments ones resort to cleanly emotional arguments. For example, to prove the statement "drugs it is necessary to forbid", ones described as some addicts ruin the health, as they suffer, having lost drugs, as in a narcotic effect someone was threw out from a window and broken, and to that similar terrible histories. Naturally, any emotional arguments cannot be considered as the logic proof. At the proof is necessary all over again all statements precisely to formalize – that is to clear them of any emotions. For example, all above-stated variety of awful histories from a life of addicts it is possible to state by the following formalized statements - "the use of drugs can negatively affect on health and mentality of people", or "the person who had a mental and physical dependence will be suffer if to deprive him of drugs". Shortly and clearly.
Having formalized statements, it is necessary to check up correctness of the made argument. For example, from the statement "there is a substance which is injurious to health of people" the logic conclusion, that it is necessary to forbid this substance, does not follow. It is necessary one more premise - the GENERAL - "ANY substances which are injurious to health of people, it is necessary to forbid". Now it is possible to consider, that from the point of view of propositional logic the argument is made correctly: from the GENERAL premise, that "… it is necessary to forbid ANY" and private premise "drugs are injurious to health of people" the truth of the conclusion follows - "it is necessary to forbid drugs".
But the logic analysis does not come to an end on it. There is the most critical moment, namely – it is necessary to be convinced, that the GENERAL premise is always true really. (We shall note, that at least one of such words as ANY, EVERYONE, ALWAYS and so forth, should obligatory to be present at the GENERAL statement). Check is consists in research of all possible consequences of this statement on discrepancy. Usually this check is not so complex, as if the GENERAL premise is incorrect, to reveal this logic defect is enough to find only one private fact which would mismatch the GENERAL statement. For example, we shall check up the general statement "ANY substances that be injurious to health - it is necessary to forbid". For this purpose we shall make argument of this GENERAL premise and to some private premises of which validity we do not doubt - "alcohol (cigarettes, fat food) - be injurious to health". Consequence of this argument will be the statement "alcohol (cigarettes, fat food) - it is necessary to forbid". It is obvious, that we come to the contradiction. So, the general premise "… it is necessary to forbid ANY " - false, and cannot be the initial statement in logic proofs.
To find out the GENERAL premises which would be true always, is extremely difficultly. As a matter of fact, all complexity of any proof just consists in revealing such GENERAL premises (axioms, postulates) - all rest - partial conclusions. So to correctly to solve the problem with drugs, it is necessary to reveal all over again these GENERAL premises. Here we should look in area of morality.
The analysis of moral aspect of an interdiction on any substance or on any action is extremely important, as any state interdiction should lean on norms of morality. The morals should form base for acceptance of legal laws, but not the reverse: the morals basically is not deduced from legal laws.
Morality and legality inherently are absolutely different notions. In an ideal they should coincide completely (meaning that everything that morally should be considered simultaneously lawful, and that is immoral – illegal), however in practice such pleasant conformity happens not always. Happens, that quite moral actions are forbidden by legal laws (for example, private business, obviously, is moral employment – however in Soviet Union legally it was considered as a criminal offence). And on the contrary, happens, that the laws allows immoral actions (for example, there were times when in the USA the white person easy could kill the slave-negro (that immorally) – but legally it was not considered as a crime).
So, in the beginning it is necessary to understand with the moral side of any act, having only convinced, that actions are immoral, after then only to adopt the legal laws forbidding such actions. But here is rise a question of basic importance – what such morality actually? Where does that come from? In what the criterion consists in splitting acts on moral and immoral?
It is interesting to note, that people are capable to judge morality of acts not having any representation about philosophical bases of this notion at all. They as though "feel" notion of morality by intuition, and these intuitive representations about morals wonderfully coincide in most cases at the majority of people. Really, people usually without any difficulty, literally not thinking, can estimate any act – moral it or immoral. For example, for all it is represented obvious what to trade in bread or clothes – morally, and to steal – immorally.
However such intuitive understanding of morality sometimes happens insufficient. And it becomes obvious at discussion of the moral party of some problems when opinions of people differs diametrically, for example: whether morally to apply a death penalty? Or - whether morally to sell alcohol? One approves, yes, others - not. Thus subjective representations about morals cannot guarantee the precise certain decision.
It is important to find objective principles of morality, which do not depend on subjective opinions of separate people (they may be even very respected as deputies of parliament, in particular) or opinions of any group of people (in particular, the majority): in fact both the separate person, and the majority of people and even all people taken together can be mistaken. So, in questions of morality (however, as well as in any scientific questions) the true cannot be defined by methods of voting. In other words, the opinion of the majority has no value. Morality (or immorality) of concrete act it is necessary TO PROVE according to all laws of mathematical logic - and not in any way otherwise.
Really, overwhelming majority of people consider drug-dealing as immoral business and consequently completely approve all the state (legal) interdictions on drugs. But far not everyone can precisely and distinctly prove this position. Usually trusting to the intuitive representations, speak briefly - "Drugs are bad. So, it is necessary to forbid them". It is important to make sure, whether is really drug traffic (and their consumption) business immoral or not.
The objective (i.e. not dependent on subjective values) criterion of splitting of acts on moral and immoral is not so simple at all. Complexity lay in that even seeming identical acts on external manifestation can be both moral and immoral. For example, murder traditionally is considered immoral, however in some cases it can be morally defensible - in particular if murder is made within the limits of necessary self-defense.
In general deep foundations of morality are based upon more fundamental concept - properties. Knowing the essence of property we can to analyze ANY attitudes between proprietors, in particular, the attitude of the state to drug traffic (to forbid or to allow).
Plain people understand the notion "property" at whole correctly: as an opportunity of proprietors (people or organizations) to change certain material subjects or the information on full own discretion. In other words, if the proprietor A has in the property object Ð, he can do with it everything within the limits of possession, in particular somehow to change, sell, present, move, damage or even to destroy it at all. And the opinion of exterior proprietors to similar using has no account for this object not is their property.
However there are also such cases when one proprietor appropriate the another's property and use it as its own. And then we speak, that such actions are compulsion. An example of compulsion is the state interdiction on drug traffic.
Now, having understood with notion of compulsion, it is possible to give strict definition to such important notion as "morality" (i.e. to find out finally, that such is "good", and that such is "bad" from the moral point of view). We shall define morality as a certain characteristic of actions of proprietors, namely:
MORAL are ALL actions which do not lead to increase of the general level of compulsions in a society.
Let's define IMMORAL actions as that are not moral.
Now the essence of notion of morality is already quite clear. That is why trade in household goods (furniture, footwear, etc.) usually is considered as business moral - for it is voluntary acts of an exchange (i.e. using) sellers and buyers of property that does not cause compulsion. That is why people usually are not punished for drunkenness, for smoking, for overeating, for damage of own things - as they use their own property and do not render any compulsion on others by this. And on the contrary, that is why such actions as larceny, hooliganism, murders, etc. - are immoral, - as it is the acts of compulsion increasing the general level of compulsions in a society.
Let's notice, that from such rationalistic understanding of morality - as the actions which are not raising level of compulsions in a society - follows, what not any compulsion is immoral. For example, punishment for criminals is moral, as reduces the general level of compulsions in a society.
Summing up all aforesaid, we shall define the following GENERAL premises:
Now all is ready - it is possible to start make a deductive conclusions of consequences from initial premises.
(MANUFACTURE, STORAGE) Using the body and other property (chemical reactants, plants, the tool, the house, etc.) the person can change them at his own desire, in particular, to make or store drugs - thus there is no compulsion on anybody. Thus the general level of compulsions in a society does not increase.
(SALE) Using own drugs (or own money) the proprietor can make voluntary interactions with other proprietors, changing drugs on money (or money on drugs) - thus compulsions do not arise.
(CONSUMPTION) As the adult person is capable to define the best using of own property, in particular he can define the best using the body and a drug - to consume or not to consume. Consuming drugs, the adult person uses only the own property - the body and the drugs, - thus compulsions on exterior people do not appear.
As any actions if they do not lead to increase of the general level of compulsions in a society are always moral, then to produce, to buy, to sell, and also to consume drugs (i.e. any using drugs) is morally.
As to use drugs morally and legal laws should forbid only immoral actions the law cannot to forbid drugs using. Hence, drugs should be legalized.
The proof is completed.