Let us have our liberty and laugh

In banning nitrous oxide the government has once again shown its aversion to individual freedom. According to the government, people taking laughing gas risk psychological harm and damage to their nerves. The substance is said to contribute to anti-social behaviour, the littering of public spaces, and to making those environments unsafe for children.

Stopping users from harming themselves, and others around them, is said to warrant a prohibition on its consumption. No liberal can accept this case, for the individual harming himself is no warrant to restrict his freedom, and, the harms to others, while wrong, cannot condemn the consumption of nitrous oxide itself.

Everyday millions of people smoke, drink, and eat themselves into poor health and an early death, and we accept they should be free to do so. By the same reasoning individuals should be free to take laughing gas, even if it does result in poor health and an early death, too.

Perhaps though it is believed individuals should be free generally, even to moderately harm themselves, but not free to consume those substances which may seriously harm them, which some might say includes laughing gas.

If you believe people should be free to moderately harm themselves only (e.g. by drinking), they should still be free to take laughing gas too. According to the government’s own drug advise service, FRANK, most of the negative effects come in the form of severe headaches, dizziness, and short-lived paranoia. Not much worse than a heavy drinking session.

Of course, if someone uses loads of laughing gas there is a danger of nerve damage via victim B12 deficiency, and death is possible too. The ONS has found the number of annual deaths due to nitrous oxide to be just five though, tragic, but almost nothing compared to the 9,641 alcohol specific deaths recorded in 2021.

Even adjusting this figure of five to assume everyone does laughing gas though (as opposed to only 2.3% of people currently) only produces the figure of 217. So basically, if you believe alcohol should be legal, then you have to believe laughing gas should be legal too.

To drive home this point, it is worth pointing out even the government’s own Advisory Council on The Misuse of Drugs has urged against criminalising laughing gas, believing the penalty of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (for Class C substances it’s two years jail or an unlimited fine), which would be applied to it, would be disproportionate to the harm it does to its personal users. This is in addition to the burden commercial users such as chefs and dentists would have to undergo, due to additional regulation and checks.

At this point I expect many paternalists will suddenly shift the whole weight of their case onto the prohibition being warranted to stop harms to others, with anti-social behaviour being the chief example. This is ridiculous. If someone peacefully takes laughing gas, as almost everyone does, it is wrong to punish them simply to pre-emptively stop the noise nuisance, trespassing, and rowdy behaviour of a tiny minority of irresponsible users (who should, of course, be punished). And this is what a prohibition would do.

What is the state going to do next, ban steak because it increases testosterone levels, which in turn increases the probability of physical violence. Clearly this argument would warrant banning alcohol, too, which relates to about £2bn of violent and non-violent crime annually. And no liberal can countenance that!

No doubt if there was a drug which, once taken, made all its users commit crime, it would be permissible to prohibit it on the harm principle. However, for the vast majority of drugs, certainly including laughing gas, this is very far from the case; it ultimately remains a choice to engage in anti-social behaviour.

And if it does not remain a choice, if someone creates a noise nuisance, how could they be punished for it? Given everyone believes these users should be punished, it is clear most people really do believe they are responsible after all. Hence, they cannot argue for prohibiting laughing gas because it is responsible for anti-social behaviour, for they have conceded the individual actually is responsible.

We can now move onto the flimsiest arguments put forward by the government. First, there is the matter of cannister litter. The preceding argument applies just as well to this case: Why should those who put their rubbish in the bin have their liberty restricted because some are too lazy to do so. Second, Michael Gove argued people need to feel public spaces are being looked after in a way that means they are safe for children. How though is taking laughing gas making parks unsafe for children?

Well, it could be argued it increases the chance of crime, but that befalls the above objection as well. I think the only argument here is children viewing the practise is a bad influence. Maybe. But if we wish to live in a free society this is just something we must accept, or, the alternative is prohibiting all sorts of behaviour in public places, e.g., smoking, drinking or preaching religious or political nonsense.  

In sum, it is clear individuals should be free to enjoy laughing gas if they so please. To prohibit its use is to adopt a pernicious paternalism, or worse, to punish innocent users simply to pre-emptively stop the tiny number of irresponsible users who may commit anti-social behaviour. In a liberal society neither of these justifications are acceptable. It is about time the government stops treating adults as if they are children, and instead allows all of us the liberty to laugh in life, whether that be at our own mistakes, or at all the highs we may achieve.