Widgets Magazine

OPINIONS

Breaking Bad, legalize drugs

Warning: spoiler alert!

Walter White’s double life in “Breaking Bad” is recounted as a sort of Jekyll and Hyde story, acclaimed for forcing its fans to “re-construct… the lines between good and evil.” However, the show’s theme of guilt forces to the surface far deeper implications for morality, rights and the role of government, rising above any crude distinctions between good and evil.

Following the meth-producing duo, Walter White and Jesse Pinkman, we see two very different sets of values. Walt feels guilty for breaking the law, compounded by his wife and in-laws. Meanwhile, Jesse is haunted by the terrible things he has done to people to maintain the duo’s position in the market. Their perspectives provide a contrast that raises an interesting question: Is it wrong to sell drugs?

It is a theme throughout the show that Walt should and does feel a responsibility for the fate of his customers. In the third season, Walt burns his drug money in a barbeque after learning of a plane crash caused by an air-traffic controller, who had recently lost his daughter to drug overdose. Among other incidents, this speaks to Walt’s underlying feelings of guilt for choosing to participate in the market.

On the surface, the obvious answer is that the drug trade is highly immoral and so Walt’s family is correct that it is wrong to sell drugs. The black market is certainly full of human rights abuses– homicide, theft, threats and worse– and it tears apart families and communities through violence and addiction. But that description does not separate the transaction from the circumstances in which they are made, and that is a crucial distinction.

At the core, drug dealing is a mutually beneficial exchange between two consenting adults, which does not violate anyone’s rights. If there were a question of whether or not the exchange is mutually beneficial, one need only to consider that the individuals involved– the dealer and the consumer– wouldn’t participate in the exchange if they didn’t think it would benefit them.

Thus, there is no reason for this sort of exchange to be illegal. It is a personal choice to sell private property, and it is a personal choice to get high. Most importantly, it is personal responsibility to deal with the consequences of those choices. When a man high on bath salts chewed off the face of a poor homeless man last summer, it wasn’t the bath salt producer’s fault–it was the junkie’s fault.

Ultimately, the responsibility of any actions made while on high a drug rests on the shoulders of the user himself, who took that drug in full knowledge of the risks to his or her perception and decision-making faculties.

There is nothing inherently immoral about getting high, as it only directly affects the junkie. What is immoral is abuse of other individuals. Though these abuses may be encouraged by the drug flowing through the bloodstream, responsibility for actions always falls upon the shoulders of the offender.

Saying that a drug dealer is responsible for the actions of his customers is the same thing as suggesting that Corona is responsible for its customers’ DUIs or that Benadryl manufacturers are responsible for a student sleeping through his 9 a.m. class.

Taking a step back, we can see that it isn’t the transaction in and of itself which leads to abuse of human rights or even sleeping in too late. If an adult wants to spend his Friday night boozed out, stoned, or tweaking on his couch, power to him.

It doesn’t hurt anyone but perhaps his own health, and liberty is the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. The issue lies in the way he allows his choices to affect others. If he spends all of his money on drugs instead of feeding his kids, that is child abuse. If he attacks a fast-food server because McDonald’s doesn’t serve McNuggets before 10:30 a.m., that is assault.

Ultimately, these choices are made by the individual, not the drug dealer. As a drug dealer, Walt has no responsibility for the consequences of his customers’ choices. Rather, he should take Jesse’s view that what their customers do with their product is not their concern. It should not be illegal to sell drugs; it is not the role of government to help people make good life choices but rather to protect people’s rights from the self-interest of others.

Devon Zuegel ’16 is executive editor of The Stanford Review.

  • Zelda F.

    Well the war on drugs, the war on poverty,& the war on terror—all not working. Only war on war seems to maybe be shifting towards working!

  • Zelda F.

    FYI Walter White –run of the mill narcisist!

  • agent smithers

    Your argument assumes agency. The problem is with drug users who no longer have agency, which probably characterizes the majority of hardcore users of hard drugs.

    The presence or absence of agency is why your “same thing” argument is wrong. Someone who drinks a Corona is likely to have agency. Someone who takes Benadryl to treat a symptom of a cold almost certainly has agency.

    It is immoral to take advantage of those who lack agency. That’s the crux of the problem with selling hard drugs. It may be that marijuna, for example, does not involve this same issue, but I think we can all agree that within the context of my argument, meth does.

  • disqus_QRjhmCV3hx

    “In the third season, Walt burns his drug money in a barbeque. . .”, well, he started to. And then he reconsidered and quickly the kicked the BBQ into his swimming pool!

  • Teri

    Well, you could legalize drugs, tax the heck out of them and use the tax money to improve neighborhoods, safety, schools, drug awareness/education, rehab, & teach life skills; actually improve all the chaos resulting from poverty & poor cultural habits that usually leads to drug trafficking in the first place.