Replies

Isn’t it in our purview to determine for ourselves what sort of community we’ll have? Of course we should begin with a presumption of liberty. But that doesn’t mean liberty is a trump card for the settling of every question.

LF, I've been following your comments on this thread and I'm impressed with the thoughtfulness and civility you've demonstrated. I'm especially glad to see a non-libertarian embrace the idea of a presumption of liberty. I hope you don't mind if I join the party a little late, so to speak.

You seem to want to strike a balance between protecting the liberty of individuals and promoting the welfare of the community. How well do you think the following compromise would meet your ideals?

I. Communities are allowed to prohibit private use of a drug only if:
a). the drug has a substantial likelihood to cause the user to immediately violate the rights of others (e.g. a drug that drives one into a berserker frenzy), or
b). the drug has such addictive power and is so expensive (even when legal) that an addict could not reasonably expect to support his habit without violating the rights of others (e.g. stealing televisions or mugging).

II. In addition, communities would be free to:
a). regulate public intoxication or public consumption of any drug, and
b). require a clean drug test before providing any social services.

To me, this seems like a compromise that would be acceptable to both libertarians and the vast bulk of conservatives. I believe most libertarians would accept this approach because it is rooted in protecting others from an almost certain violation of their rights...one of the few (or perhaps only) legitimate roles of government recognized by libertarians. It's really not that different from prohibiting people from firing a gun into a crowd.

I think conservatives would find this acceptable as well since it addresses their primary concern with drug use, which is the danger posed by having desperate addicts running around in the streets. It also prevents having to pay for lazy drug users or having one's children exposed to drug use while in public.

Other than that, if someone chooses to waste away their time and their money getting high in private, what business is it of the community? I suppose one could argue for even more stringent restrictions on the grounds that drug users are unproductive, or distasteful, or don't vote the way we like. But I don't think we want to empower governments - even local governments - to force us into becoming more productive, or more aesthetically pleasing, or heaven forbid, to vote the way the majority wants us to vote.

Do you think my approach would be an acceptable compromise between preserving liberty and protecting the community?

Ah, but who's going to make those determinations, and on what sort of foundation? Just as with the the first drug prohibitions in this country & all the others, everyone is going to chime in with their particular brand of expertise. You can't make it just a matter of science, it is cherry picked as much as anything (global warming). If you've read all of this thread you know there are folks going around saying drugs cause evil spirits to enter the mind and every bag of smack has it's own little spook inside waiting to unleash the next Charles Manson. You know there has to be some kind of hook and the interracial sex thing isn't going to play so well next time around. So, easy enough to say there's plenty of hokum and not much of substance to justify restraining an individual who hasn't caused any harm.

At the same time you can look at something like meth (for example - surely not the only "bad" thing but one about which I have some personal knowledge) and make a reasonable assumption that, if legal, it would be very cheap and even when addicted a person can be functional and hold a job, and have no trouble buying all he wants on his honest living. But the time comes with so many (and I personally know a good number of them) where social function and the ability to earn a living kind of slips away, and they enter a downward spiral. Three of my closest friends growing up are dead because of it (suicides all) and along the way they did not leave their loved ones unharmed.

So on this thing and all the others you need to decide what to do. A no tolerance ban, personal use but no trade, start throwing down sanctions somewhere between functional and criminal, or just wait for the crime? I wouldn't think it heartbreaking if they'd just spin out & jump off the bridge, but along the way they have spouses being knocked around, kids being neglected, parents being robbed and so on. And unless you have another thing we libertarians dislike, that cradle to grave family monitoring certain groups of folks would love to see, nobody is likely to know these things are happening 'til they have gone on a while.

Now if you've read much of what I've posted here you know this whole theme of conflict and pitfalls keeps springing up, and I don't pretend to have the perfect solution, but IMO it'll need some consideration beyond what you've listed.

Thank you for your kind remarks!

Your proposal seems to me an appropriate compromise for desperate circumstances; and if we're that desperate, I would support it. But are we that desperate? I believe and hope that we are not.

Or if we are, we've got much bigger problems to tackle than whether to legalize drugs. Unfortunately, when our problems get that big, an even larger majority will grant even more authority to an even bigger government, and you and I won't be discussing such "nit-picky" questions as individual liberty vs. community restrictions.

I realize this digresses from your question, but it's what underlies my objection to permissive drug laws, and it's why I would reject your proposed compromise under any but the most extreme circumstances. A weakened people are ripe pickings for any tyrant, foreign or domestic.

Neither you nor I desire to be ruled by a tyrant. The adage power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely is recognized as an immutable law of nature. So is he who will not rule himself will be ruled by another. Though there are and always will be exceptions to these general truths, to gamble that this or that circumstance is one of those exceptions is to play with fire - and to risk burning ourselves, our fellows, and our posterity.

Some may be willing to accept that risk, but with all due respect, I'm not willing to let them. To lose that gamble would not only destroy our nation, but even worse it would cast into doubt for generations the idea that we the people are fit to govern ourselves.

What the anarcho-libertarian either forgets or willingly overlooks in his zeal for liberty is that an individual's exercise of his liberties has effects beyond himself. Your compromise, by contrast, both acknowledges that such externalities exist and attempts to mitigate them. I reject your proposal only because I consider the externalities of drug use to be beyond mitigation.

Even you acknowledge (in Section I of your proposal) that the effect on society of certain drugs cannot be sufficiently mitigated, that all compromise on such drugs may reasonably be refused by the community. You're correct to recognize the risk - to society - of permitting such drugs.

We are a community, not merely a collection of individuals. And as I've argued earlier, in joining ourselves together, we relinquish that absolute freedom which that solitary man "in the state of nature" enjoys. We have formed governments because, although they're an "evil", they're a necessary one. In consenting to form these governments, we consented to be governed by "the will of the majority restrained".

If a man wishes to ruin his life, I'll let him. Not happily, but I'll let him do it rather than suggest we outlaw the means of ruination. "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of their folly is to fill the world with fools," said one philosopher.

But the problem is not just with those who wish "to waste away their time and their money getting high in private" - as you yourself admit in Section I. Rather, there are drugs which are so powerful as to pose a threat to those who don't wish their lives affected by them. A man may be permitted to buy enough sleeping tablets to be fatal. But that doesn't mean we'll let him walking around the crowded town square with a vial of volatile nitroglycerin in his pocket.

Where you and I part ways even further is that I go a step beyond the immediate, perceived damage done by drugs. Berzerker frenzies and burglaries and superficial damage. But beneath the crime statistics is the societal rot which brings down nations and cultures.

It's a sad thing for a nation to fall because of a seductive philosophy (e.g. Marxism) or false religion (e.g. Islam). But it would be a tragedy of tragedies for our great nation to fall because we drugged our minds, fried our brains, and willingly allowed our very capacity to reason to be subverted. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if "the land of the free" used its freedom to choose the path to slavery?