Joshua Phillips: The hidden harm of legalizing marijuana use: Why libertarians should oppose SB 120
Philadelphia and its surrounding counties are already wrestling with rampant public drug use, soaring homelessness, and crime. Now, Pennsylvania lawmakers are entertaining bills like Senate Bill 120, which seek to legalize recreational marijuana under the illusion of “personal freedom” and “smart regulation.” Many libertarians instinctively support such measures. But in truth, SB 120 and efforts to legalize marijuana directly undermine and are counter to the very pillars of libertarian philosophy and ideals.
At its heart, libertarianism champions three fundamental principles: the non-aggression principle, protection of private property rights, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts. SB 120 and the broader push to normalize marijuana violate each of these core tenets while imposing real costs on the daily lives of Pennsylvanians.
The non-aggression principle: When “harmless” isn’t harmless
Libertarians rightly value the freedom to live without aggression or coercion. The non-aggression principle holds that harm is only justified in self-defense, not in initiating it. Advocates claim marijuana is a personal choice that harms no one else. But that simply isn’t true.
Consider our roads. Marijuana use significantly impairs reaction time and judgment, creating deadly consequences behind the wheel. A study by the Centennial Institute found that, in Colorado alone, marijuana-impaired driving crashes cost over $25 million in one year, with 139 people killed by drivers under the influence of cannabis. That is aggression, plain and simple, visited on innocent drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Closer to home, Philadelphia already battles reckless driving and high pedestrian fatalities. Adding widespread marijuana use to the mix all but guarantees more tragedies — and more need for government crackdowns, checkpoints, and costly emergency responses. Far from reducing state power, legalization invites it.
Then there’s secondhand harm. Marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco. Legalization means more use in shared spaces — apartment complexes, sidewalks, even playground-adjacent streets — forcing non-users, including children, to inhale harmful compounds against their will. The right to bodily autonomy cuts both ways; your freedom to smoke ends where another’s lungs begin.
Worse still is the impact on kids. Legal weed means more predatory advertising, more pot shops (often concentrated in poorer urban neighborhoods), and edibles that look like candy. The developing adolescent brain is especially vulnerable to substances that disrupt emotion regulation and cognition. By normalizing marijuana, we turn a supposed “victimless crime” into a multi-generational public health crisis that is way outside the boundaries of personal freedom.
Property rights: Who pays for your high?
John Locke, the father of classical liberal thought, argued that property rights are foundational to liberty. You should control the fruits of your labor and not have them seized to subsidize someone else’s choices.
Yet wherever marijuana is legalized, taxpayers foot the bill for the fallout. The same Colorado study found that for every $1 in tax revenue from marijuana, $4.50 was spent on addressing increased health care, addiction services, and law enforcement costs. That’s legalized plunder, where your hard-earned dollars bail out the social costs of someone else’s buzz.
In Philadelphia, where property taxes already strain homeowners, imagine those dollars being diverted to manage the consequences of marijuana addiction and treatment, while potholes go unfilled and schools remain underfunded. Legalization forces the many to underwrite the risky choices of the few, in violation of basic property rights.
Even within private living spaces, marijuana poses problems. In dense row homes and apartment buildings, smoke doesn’t respect property lines. Your neighbor’s marijuana habit seeps into your child’s bedroom through shared vents and hallways. Who owns the air? Who compensates you for reduced air quality or lost enjoyment of your own property? Legalizing marijuana creates conflicts that inevitably require more rules, lawsuits, and state interventions. This is hardly the libertarian ideal.
Voluntary exchange: A free market undermined by foggy minds
The most important pillar of a libertarian’s functioning free market society is the protection and enforcement of voluntary contracts. Through the legalization of weed, these contracts could be uprooted through THC’s ability to hinder and affect one’s ability to think and make decisions. As Timothy Hsiao, adjunct professor of philosophy at Park University, writes, “One of the government’s chief responsibilities is to protect and promote freedom. In order to do this, it must also protect and promote the underlying conditions that make freedom possible, one of these being clarity of thought. The government therefore has an interest in cultivating a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking.”
As it is, employers already struggle to fill safety-sensitive positions. Marijuana impairs attention and reaction time, increasing the risk of workplace accidents. Businesses then face liability and must impose stricter drug policies, reducing privacy and tightening contract terms. In the long run, this burdens honest workers and employers with higher insurance premiums and compliance costs.
Staying true to libertarian principles
To be sure, some libertarians might argue that adults have a right to ingest whatever they wish, consequences be damned. That argument may make sense, until those consequences spill over into car crashes, higher taxes, impaired contractual capacity, and kids exposed to harmful substances. At that point, it’s no longer a matter of personal liberty but of violating others’ rights and shifting costs onto neighbors.
True libertarianism is not about maximizing personal indulgence regardless of harm. It’s about responsible freedom — liberty anchored by the duty not to infringe on others’ rights or drain their resources.
A call for libertarian consistency
Citizens of our commonwealth are already grappling with enough challenges, from violent crime to significantly underfunded services, without inviting new burdens cloaked in the language of “freedom.” SB 120 would expand the size of government (to regulate, tax, and mitigate marijuana’s harms), swell bureaucracy, and socialize the costs of private vice. Not only does this bill propose a new layer of government by establishing a seven-member control board, but SB 120 would impose the heavy hand of Big Government by removing the rights of local officials to deny a pot shop in their jurisdiction.
If one wishes to uphold genuine libertarian values — non-aggression, respect for property, and secure voluntary agreements — then it should include resisting the deceptive siren call of marijuana legalization. This isn’t about moralizing. It’s about protecting individual rights from the very infringements that bills like SB 120 would accelerate.
So to my fellow liberty-minded citizens across Pennsylvania: Let’s stay consistent. Say no to SB 120, not to curtail freedom, but to safeguard it from the costly, coercive consequences of state-sanctioned legalized marijuana.
Joshua Phillips is a registered Libertarian, and a political pcience honors student at The Catholic University of America and 2025 PA Family Institute intern. He is a resident of Glenmoore, Pennsylvania.
