d fraud and, to the maximum extent possible, abstain from participating in the production and distribution of goods and services." (Szasz, page 2). In this system of laissez-faire, the government has a very small role. According to Szasz, the government should have a passive role in any market, including the market for drugs. Once the government gives up its active role, which is represented by the "war on drugs", a free market for drugs which Szasz proposes can be attained. As we delve into Mr. Szaszs first argument, we begin to see major problems with the governments "War on Drugs". According to Szasz, the prohibition of drugs is a blatant violation of human rights guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution. In order to prove his point, he equates drugs to personal property. According to the Constitution, every American citizen shall have "the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, the first two elements resting squarely on the last." (Szasz, 1). Thus, Szasz contends that "because both our bodies and drugs are types of propertyproducing, trading in, and using drugs are property rights, and drug prohibitions constitute a deprivation of basic constitutional rights." (Szasz, 2). In other words, just like the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment, so does the prohibition of drugs. Without that amendment, the prohibition of drugs is in direct violation of the Constitution.The second argument that Szasz makes is one, surprisingly enough, against the legalization of drugs. Even though Szasz argues for a free market for drugs, this is much different from the argument that self-proclaimed "drug legalizers" make. According to Szasz, most proponents of drug legalization argue for what he calls "Legalization as Taxation" (Szasz, page 106). Ethan Nadelmann, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, claims the following,Lets say we decide, okay, were not going to legalize...
