There is a relationship between antiprohibitionism and antipaternalism. In a nutshell, according to antipaternalism (a complete definition can be found in Chap. 2 ), the state cannot use coercion to limit the rational and competent choices made by an adult individual who is sufficiently free from coercive pressures (e.g., threats), who knows the relevant facts, whose relevant desires are stable over time, even where these choices cause (what is considered) harm to the individual making the same choices, so long as the harm does not affect any third parties. This is John Stuart Mills’ famous Harm to Others Principle, under which (to reiterate) an autonomous individual’s freedom of action can be restricted, through the use of coercion, only if it harms others. In short, antiprohibitionism advocates legalizing the consumption and sale of drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, Ecstasy) whose sale (and sometimes consumption) is punished with criminal penalties or with severe administrative fines in many countries of the Western world. So there seem to be two kinds of prohibitionists: the paternalist and the antipaternalist. Paternalistic prohibitionists would like to restrict people’s freedom to consume narcotics for their own good. Then there are the prohibitionists who explicitly use the harm principle, because they claim that legalizing the sale and consumption of drugs would cause certain economic and psychophysical harms to the community. For example, it is claimed that legalization of illicit drugs would result in a significant increase in their consumption, which would lead to an increase in the harm caused to the health of users, as well as to violent behaviour of users of certain drugs (e.g., cocaine), healthcare costs incurred by the community for the treatment and detoxification of users, or road or workplace accidents.