The Inalienable Right to Self-Medication

The Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | November 3, 2003 | Sheldon Richman

[RJCogburn]

What’s lost in discussion of Rush Limbaugh’s alleged illegal use of painkillers is the inalienable right to medicate oneself, which is contained in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. True, governments don’t recognize this right. Limbaugh himself has not recognized it. But as some conservatives say about the right to keep and bear arms, a right is a right even if the government doesn’t recognize it.

Limbaugh claims he became addicted to prescription painkillers after unsuccessful back surgery failed to stop his pain. Published reports say he purchased large quantities of pills illegally.

This is embarrassing to Limbaugh fans on several counts. He portrays himself as a paragon if not of virtue, then of self-mastery; he opposes law-breaking; and he is a devoted drug warrior, favoring jail terms for users as well as sellers.

Predictably, Limbaugh’s predicament has prompted some conservatives to discover distinctions they had hitherto overlooked. As columnist Ben Shapiro wrote on Townhall.com, "It is despicable how the media have equated prescription painkiller addiction with recreational drug addiction."

We have grown accustomed to such simple-mindedness from conservatives when it comes to the persecution of drug users. In this regard, Jacob Sullum’s new book, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, should be read by anyone looking for common sense on the subject.

As Sullum demonstrates, the distinction that Shapiro asserts is not obvious at all. Most people who use drugs recreationally are not addicts by any serious definition. They use drugs (including heroin and cocaine) moderately and responsibly—just as most drinkers use alcohol, which is potentially more harmful than many banned drugs. What’s more, they stop when they believe drugs interfere with more important things in life. They don’t come close to matching the addict stereotype.

This will surprise most people. Because such drugs are illegal, responsible users are invisible. They don’t talk about their habit, and the media don’t discuss them. All one hears about are the people who get in trouble, one way or another, with drugs. The skewed media accounts are buttressed by the incessant barrage of dishonest propaganda issuing from government agencies. (Everything said about illegal drugs was once said about alcohol.)

The one-sided, negative view that people are given about drugs is similar to the one-sided, negative view they are given about guns—something that conservatives, including Limbaugh, complain about. Yet they don’t realize that the same thing happens with drugs.

What about the people who use heroin or cocaine irresponsibly? First, they are a small minority. Second, the drug war doesn’t stop such people, but it can and does wreak social havoc. Third, contrary to the new conservative insight, they are not conceptually different from people who irresponsibly use prescription painkillers after back surgery.

Is there really a distinction between someone trying to escape a painful back and someone trying to escape a painful life? Doctors tell us that stress and anxiety can cause physical illness. So why is self-treating psychic pain so different from self-treating physical pain? The real distinction is between responsibility and irresponsibility, not between back pain and stress.

The word "addiction" is thrown around too casually. What does it mean to say that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to OxyContin or Vicodin? Presumably it means that if he stopped taking the drugs he’d miss them. But it doesn’t mean he is a slave to them. He was able to function for five or six years while regularly using the drugs. Moreover, he chose to walk into a medical facility knowing he would not have access to them for 30 days. He opted to accept whatever discomfort that will ensue because he prefers the outcome (which may include leniency from the authorities). As psychologist Jeffrey Schaler says, "Addiction is a choice."

The Limbaugh case exposes the war on drug users as a religious crusade against people who use what Sullum calls politically incorrect drugs in the manner of their own choosing. Conservatives who still care about individual liberty should defect and demand the repeal of prohibition.

[JmyBryan]

Take this demon-conjurer out and shoot him. I guess he just wants airline pilots who are high as kites. And children so strung out that they prostitute themselves for their next fix.


(sarcasm)

[gcruse]

the inalienable right to medicate oneself, which is
contained in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

I think my skin looks better after bathing in the blood
of the infidel.  This is self-medication for real men.
Gotta love that L,L, and the POH!  #8>)

[steplock]

Libertarian Alert! :>)

Actually, I agree in part - the govt should not have made the use of any drug illegal.

The sale is a different story - I would agree with the death penalty for a convicted drug SMUGGLER but NO PENALTY for the user.

Any accident caused by a user, the crime is the accident - not the WHY of the accident.

Adding any additional penalty for a cause is the same as "HATE CRIMES" is it not?

The caveat being - LAWYERS! - we need to BAN lawyers from suing companies for firing anyone for using or being under the influence of drugs while on the job.

While we're at it - if I don't want to rent a house to a drug addict it is my business, just as I do NOT want to rent my house to any homosexuals that enjoy the fine arts of FISTING and other bloody sports! It cost me a fortune to santize a house after cleaning all the blood and other "thing" off the walls and ceiling.

But I digress... To clarify my opening point - "SMUGGLER" denotes an illegal act. I would add penalties for doctors that overprescribe and get people hooked on drugs also.

But NOT the user.

[FairOpinion]

The guy is talking about a larger issue: " the inalienable right to medicate oneself".

It's not the question of putting others in danger, because of talking drugs.

I think of the issue is, that, for instance, the FDA tells us what medication we are allowed to have. There are medications which have been used in Europe, for instance, which are still illegal in the US, because they are not approved by the FDA.

Just as someone may ADVISE you what foods you should eat, but better not FORCE you to eat certain foods, or PREVENT you from eating them, the same should be true of medication (as I said, when you put other people in danger, that obviously is a different situation).

While the author brought it up in the context of an addictive medication, but think of it in the larger context. I vaguely remember reading that Tagamet (sp?) which people use for ulcers has been used in Europe for some 30 years, while in the US people were suffering with ulcers and they weren't allowed to use it. Eventually the FDA approved it here too.

But the point is that nobody should tell you what you can do with your own body, as long as what you do has no impact on other people.

I want to take out hallucegenic drugs from my above statement, that is a whole other Pandorra's box, but there are many medications, which the government shouldn't determine, whether you are allowed to take them or not.

[Petronski]

Another predictable toke from the Libertarians.

Did I say toke? I meant take. Another predictable take from the Libertarians.

[arasina]

heh heh

[avenir]

"Because such drugs are illegal, responsible users are invisible."

They're invisible because they only exist in the warped minds of people who come up with bizarre arguments like these. Really, if "responsible users of cocaine and heroin" are invisible, how can a valid comparison be made with "irresponsible users" who--in the fantasy realm of this writer--are "in the minority"?

I hear the ghost of MrLeroy crying out "Provide EVIDENCE for your claim!!!"

[jocon307]

I think he makes a good point here. I'm not so sure about heroin, but I'm quite sure there were/are plenty of people who used cocaine without getting totally strung out on it. And I'm sure that membership in AA vastly exceeds membership in NA.

I don't know if all drugs should be legal, but I do wonder if Rush, if he is still in pain, isn't just under-medicated. Even though I was raised as a Roman Catholic and therefore DO equate suffering with virtue, I wouldn't reccomend it as public policy or even good sense.

[mc5cents]

The sale is a different story - I would agree with the death penalty for a convicted drug SMUGGLER but NO PENALTY for the user.

Hmmm. Now we can discuss some supply-side economics. If there is no demand there will be no supply. The old which comes first argument, the chicken or the egg. And so it goes. Can we agree that the misuse of narcotics is wrong. I hope so. Should the government get involved in regulating what is available to us, that is the question. What is the proper role of government. That is the question. Is the role of government to be our conscience? Maybe is some ways yes. The law as teacher. God gave us laws to help us live better lives to become closer to Him. Government gives us laws (based on what?) to help us live better lives?. Don't know about that. To have a more civil society, yes to some extent. To punish us for things that "government" sees as wrong. Yup. To advance a moral agenda? Nope. Not the function of government. Shouldn't be anyway. But at times it is. We are human after all. The law is important but unjust laws are as someone once said "an ass". And we have some assanine laws, don't we?

[Jack Black]

No mention of the fact that Rush's "choice" cost him his hearing.

[11B3]

None of you get it, do you? Liberty, without the nanny state is beyond your comprehension - right along with personal responsibility being the key to personal freedoms. Responsible users exist everywhere - some of you are just too damned ignorant to see them while you sit there with your drink in hand looking down your nose at "the druggies".

Open mindedness is not a trait that any of you share. Nor is true conservatism, as authoritarianism and hypocrisy are hallmark traits of leftists.

This article really has nothing to do with drugs if you'd merely pull your head out of your fourth point of contact before opening your mouths (or keyboards in this case). I don't do drugs, I don't advocate drugs, but I DO ADVOCATE KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE. Got a problem with that?

Go ahead, flame all you want. You'll only be proving what I've said above.

[Arpege92]

"This is embarrasing to Limbaugh fans on several counts."

Excuse me, but I NEVER EVER EVER said I was an embarassed fan of Limbaugh. I wish idiots would quit pretending they speak for all when spewing total garbage from there big traps.

[corkoman]

No mention of the fact that Rush's "choice" cost him his hearing.

Wrong bird brain. According to the Enquirer he was using opiates way before the hearing went.

And the hearing loss is due to an autoimmune disease. Good thing you are not a clinician. You make a better totalitarian.

[TheHound]

I will meet you. What say you is the difference between Liberty and Anarchy? I say it is Law. You say you should be able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Who decides that? If it is you, then it is anarchy, if it is law, Liberty. If you cannot abide the Law then Liberty should allow you to leave it's confines. If you refuse then it must confine you.

[The Shootist]

They're invisible because they only exist in the warped minds of people who come up with bizarre arguments like these . . .

Are there "responsible" users of alcohol? Q.E.D.

Case closed, next case.

I should probably say something witty about the terminally closed minds of some "conservatives" but I'm tired of arguing with those who falsely claim to support "Liberty for all" but really only want a world where theirs is the only accepted morality.

Somebody really needs to form a new political party for Authoritarians so the good name of Conservative will no longer be tainted by their poisonous thoughts.

[avenir]

"I don't do drugs, I don't advocate drugs, but I DO ADVOCATE KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE. Got a problem with that?"

One is curious: how do those who proclaim I DON'T DO DRUGS/I DON'T ADVOCATE DRUGS come to define "freedom" as The Right To Take Any Substance I (err, THEY) Darn Well Please, obsessing over it, riding it like a hobby horse?

I HAVE done drugs, and I HAVE seen what drugs have done to those foolish enough to tangle with them. And yes, I HAVE seen "responsible users of cocaine and heroin" who invariably wound up becoming, shall we say, a tad irresponsible once they figured out how good it feels to blitz out, followed by the predictable ugly decline into "irresponsible use". Not much different than all those occasional smokers who, having passed the point of politeness in bumming cigs from the "real smokers", finally cave and buy their own pack. Poor things, Old Nic finally got em and now they're just one of the mob of loser addicts. But for awhile there they had a good con going as a "responsible smoker".

It ain't rocket science, IIB3. There's a reason Some Drugs are prohibited (and some, not prohibited, wise to avoid), a reason someone in your drug-free ivory tower cannot know about. All your type does is make arrid pronouncements about "freedom", while coldly consigning those who become "irresponsible users"--heaven help us, the asshatanity of this ridiculous fantasy of "responsible users of cocaine and heroin"...LOL--to the hell of their own making. They deserve it.

Well, yeah, I have a problem with that.

[avenir]

Are there "responsible" users of alcohol? Q.E.D.

Case closed, next case.

---

I'll see your Q.E.D. and raise you an Ignoratio Elenchi--supposing something proved or disproved by proving or disproving something else not at issue, i. e. responsible/irresponsible use of alcohol. We were talking about cocaine and heroin I believe?

The case reopened, I won't argue the relative merits of alcohol/tobacco vs. cocaine/heroin with ANYONE who claims to have never used them or to brush off the consequences of their use as just another example of "freedom". There are differences among available substances, and those who pretend otherwise have no business in the discussion.

Terminally closed minds? G.K. Chesterton (I believe) once said: "The object of having an open mind is that, at some point in the future, one will shut it again on something solid."

Do so.

[TheHound]

As you should probably know, the term "Conservative" means one who wants to hold to the philosophy of the past. That past being in this case the Constitution of the United States of America. Morality really has nothing to do with it. It is not Authoritarian, you want to make Libertarianism, Conservatism. Good Luck.

[The Shootist]

i. e. responsible/irresponsible use of alcohol. We were talking about cocaine and heroin I believe?

Alcohol is a drug. Q.E.D. II