Legalize it? Categorize it. An alternative to the drug war
Having criticised the current drug regulation on several occasions, I should now say what I would like to see instead. A risk classification similar to the EU's AI Act.
Mandatory labelling such as the one shown in the picture, which warns of the high sugar or calorie content of a product, has already been introduced in many countries, mainly in Latin America. The featured photo shows a Coke can from Mexico. In Hungary and other EU member states, the most common compulsory form similar to that, which makes the packaging look even more disfiguring, is the goose shit coloured cigarette packet with crab lungs.
Both cases show that the leaders of countries have understood that not everything that is in some way risky or harmful can be banned, but it is also desirable to signal that just because something is legal does not necessarily mean that it will have a positive effect on us.
Several grocery manufacturers also voluntarily adopted the so-called Nutri-Score labeling on food packaging, although the answer to the question of whether a food or drink is healthy is a little more complex than that. However, while it is also not easy to answer with a yes or no to whether ChatGPT is good and beneficial for society or not, the EU AI Act has been passed, which classifies AI systems into four risk categories, from unacceptable to minimal, regulating which uses are prohibited or more strictly regulated, and which are not subject to extra regulation.
Having criticised the Hungarian drug regulation on several occasions, I should now say what I would like to see instead.
Well, most of all, a risk classification similar to the AI Act for all products and substances intended for human consumption, including currently illegal substances as well.
This would be a governmental task to prepare and keep up to date, but it would have to be put together with a truly scientifically recognised methodology and by independent experts. Such a risk classification would not have to undertake the complex task of deciding what is healthy but rather categorise everything that is intended for human consumption based on exact categories, in a similar way that the AI Act did with AI services: how much risk one poses to humans.
My Substack is free, without a paywall, even the English version. But if you like what you are reading, and you would like to support classical liberal thinking in Central Europe, you can support my work here.
So which ones are unsafe in terms of, for example, obesity, diabetes, cancer, short-term side effects, addiction and dependency, organ damage, mental problems, which one has a lethal dose, etc. Once this database is established, a public debate should be started on which level of risk is still acceptable and under what conditions.
Of course, if it turns out that there are lower-risk but illegal and higher-risk but permitted things, then such legislation should be reviewed immediately and the inconsistency need to be removed.
In the case of higher-risk products — maintaining my earlier assertion that it is immoral to put someone in prison just because they have harmed themselves — prohibition should not necessarily be the only solution. It would be enough to declare someone's own responsibility.
When I argue on drug laws, saying that people who live self-destructive lives at home but do no harm to others should not be persecuted, one counter-argument often comes up: Sure, but the state pays for their healthcare. Well, that point could be covered in such a debate. I think it is conceivable that certain high-risk substances, such as, but not limited to, currently illegal drugs, could be consumed, but only under highlighted personal responsibility.
In other words, only those can get access to them, who first sign a declaration that, if they have serious health problems as a result, they will bear some of the costs.
Of course, this raises questions about rethinking the whole social security system. If the higher risk’s costs might be imposed on those who choose self-destructive lives, why shouldn't those who invest a lot of effort into living healthy lives pay lower social security? So if we start to debate on this topic, it’ll go way beyond itself.
While I still don’t think that the law is for protecting ourselves from our own poor choices, if there is already a mandatory pictogram marking system for how energy efficient a fridge is, then I think it would be reasonable to expect a unified risk rating system for everything intended for human consumption. This would allow a meaningful public debate about what the acceptable level of individual risk-taking is and what is needed to take more risk than the average person does.
This would finally end the practice of deciding whether something is legal or not based on lobbying interests and habit.
Currently, this seems to be the case; instead of what you can freely consume and what can lead to an arrest would be decided based clearly and solely on the substance’s level of harm and risk. It would be great if this issue could be debated rationally rather than through current religious-like discussions.
About me. I am a Budapest-based Hungarian journalist born in Szeged (a city you may not have heard about, but should visit sometime). This is my first Substack piece in English. My other writings are all in Hungarian, but recently I was featured in Eurozine’s Standard Time talk show about the social media usage of children, which you can watch here. If you like what you’ve just read, you can support my work here.