James Ostrowski’s seminal 1990 law review article, “The Moral and Practical Case for Drug Legalization,” lays out a dual-pronged argument—rooted in individual rights and empirical policy analysis—for ending the prohibition of non‑medical drugs. As a US lawyer and policy commentator, Ostrowski articulates a comprehensive case that is both ethically principled and pragmatically grounded.
I. The Moral Argument: Individual Liberty and Self‑Ownership
At the core of Ostrowski’s moral framework is the principle of self‑ownership. He draws on libertarian philosophers such as Douglas Rasmussen and Hans‑Hermann Hoppe to argue that individuals possess inviolable rights over their own bodies and minds—meaning peaceful, voluntary drug use cannot morally justify government intervention through force.
Prohibition, in Ostrowski’s view, is exactly “the initiation of physical force against persons engaged in nonviolent actions and voluntary transactions involving prohibited drugs”. He emphasizes that criminalization initiates coercion without justification—because users harm no one else—and thus violates basic civil liberties.
II. The Practical Case: Cost–Benefit Analysis of Prohibition vs. Legalization
Ostrowski goes beyond philosophical premises, offering a detailed cost–benefit analysis of prohibition. He highlights the enormous costs stemming from prohibition—including violent crime, corruption, incarceration, and logistical burdens on law enforcement and justice systems. Argumentatively, he estimates:
- Tens of thousands of deaths caused by unsafe dosage, contaminated supplies, or lack of medical oversight.
- Organized crime earning tens of billions annually from illicit drug markets, enriching cartels and destabilizing communities.
- A justice system overloaded with drug-possession cases, diverting resources from serious violent crime enforcement.
He argues that legalization would shrink black‑market-driven violence—recalling the homicide spike during alcohol Prohibition—by transferring supply to regulated legal markets, thereby lowering prices and removing illicit profit motivation.
III. Addressing Critics: Responding to Objections and Fear of Increased Use
Ostrowski also offered direct responses to major critics—such as former drug policy officials and academics—contending their opposition lacks empirical. While opponents argue legalization would lead to skyrocketing drug use and addiction, Ostrowski notes limited data supports this assumption. For instance, in jurisdictions with regulated cannabis (like Alaska and the Netherlands), youth daily use rates have not exceeded those in the continental United States—and in some cases, were lower.
He asserts opponents carry the burden of proof: they must demonstrate that legalization would create more overall harm than prohibition does—something Ostrowski argues they have not convincingly done.
IV. Implementation Proposals: Regulated Markets and Harm Reduction
Far from proposing an unregulated “free-for-all,” Ostrowski envisions a controlled legal framework resembling alcohol and tobacco regulation. His model includes:
- Strict licensing of retail outlets;
- Dram‑shop-like liability laws to penalize sales to overly intoxicated users;
- Taxes used to fund education, treatment, and prevention programs;
- Age restrictions and special protections (e.g. prohibiting sales to visibly pregnant women).
Such a system aims to reduce societal harms while respecting personal autonomy.
Conclusion: Legacy and Modern Relevance
James Ostrowski’s “Moral and Practical Case for Drug Legalization” melds libertarian moral theory with rigorous empirical critique of prohibition. He anticipates many modern arguments in favor of drug reform: civil liberties, racial justice, cost savings, and public health. These arguments remain highly relevant in contemporary US debates—particularly as states experiment with cannabis legalization, harm reduction policies, and reconsider penalties for broader drug offenses.
For legal practitioners, policymakers, and journalists, Ostrowski’s work continues to serve as a foundational reference—asserting that rational drug policy does not rest on fear, but on empirical scrutiny and respect for individual rights.
