Posted on 05/18/2002 7:44:57 PM PDT by LarryLied
One measure of a good society is whether its individual members have the autonomy to do as they choose in respects that principally concern only them. The debate about heroin, cocaine and marijuana touches precisely on this. In my submission, a society in which such substances are legal and available is a good society not because drugs are in themselves good, but because the autonomy of those who wish to use them is respected. For other and broader reasons, many of them practical, such a society will be a better one.
I have never taken drugs other than alcohol, nicotine, caffeine and medicinal drugs. Of these, I have for many years not taken the two former. I think it is inimical to a good life to be dependent for pleasure and personal fulfilment on substances which gloss or distort reality and interfere with rationality; and yet I believe that heroin, cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and cognates of these should be legal and available in exactly the same way as nicotine and alcohol.
In logic is no difference between legal and currently illegal drugs. Both are used for pleasure, relief from stress or anxiety, and 'holidaying' from normal life, and both are, in different degrees, dangerous to health. Given this, consistent policy must do one of two things: criminalise the use of nicotine and alcohol, in order to bring them in line with currently illegal substances; or legalise currently illegal substances under the same kinds of regime that govern nicotine and alcohol.
On civil liberties grounds the latter policy is preferable because there is no justification in a good society for policing behaviour unless, in the form of rape, murder, theft, riot or fraud, it is intrinsically damaging to the social fabric, and involves harm to unwilling third parties. Good law protects in these respects; bad law tries to coerce people into behaving according to norms chosen by people who claim to know and to do better than those for whom they legislate. But the imposition of such norms is an injustice. By all means let the disapprovers argue and exhort; giving them the power to coerce and punish as well is unacceptable.
Arguments to the effect that drugs should be kept illegal to protect children fall by the same token. On these grounds, nicotine and alcohol should be banned too. In fact there is greater danger to children from the illegality of drugs.
Almost everyone who wishes to try drugs, does so; almost everyone who wishes to make use of drugs does it irrespective of their legal status. Opponents say legalisation will lead to unrestrained use and abuse. Yet the evidence is that where laws have been relaxed there is little variation in frequency or kind of use.
The classic example is Prohibition in the USA during the 1920s. (The hysteria over alcohol extended to other drugs; heroin was made illegal in the USA in 1924, on the basis of poor research on its health risks and its alleged propensity to cause insanity and criminal behaviour.) Prohibition created a huge criminal industry. The end of Prohibition did not result in a frenzy of drinking, but did leave a much-enhanced crime problem, because the criminals turned to substances which remained illegal, and supplied them instead.
Crime destabilises society. Gangland rivalry, the use of criminal organisations to launder money, to fund terrorism and gun-running, to finance the trafficking of women and to buy political and judicial influence all destabilise the conditions for a good society far beyond such problems as could be created by private individuals' use of drugs. If drugs were legally and safely available through chemist shops, and if their use was governed by the same provisions as govern alcohol purchase and consumption, the main platform for organised crime would be removed, and thereby one large obstacle to the welfare of society.
It would also remove much petty crime, through which many users fund their habit. If addiction to drugs were treated as a medical rather than criminal matter, so that addicts could get safe, regular supplies on prescription, the crime rate would drop dramatically, as argued recently by certain police chiefs.
The safety issue is a simple one. Paracetemol is more dangerous than heroin. Taking double the standard dose of paracetemol, a non-prescription analgesic, can be dangerous. Taking double the standard medical dose of heroin (diamorphine) causes sleepiness and no lasting effects.
A good society should be able to accommodate practices which are not destructive of social bonds (in the way that theft, rape, murder and other serious crimes are), but mainly have to do with private behaviour. In fact, a good society should only interfere in private behaviour in extremis.
Until a century ago, now-criminal substances were legal and freely available. Some (opium in the form of laudanum) were widely used. Just as some people are damaged by misuse of alcohol, so a few were adversely affected by misuses of other drugs. Society as a whole was not adversely affected by the use of drugs; but it was benefited by the fact that it did not burden itself with a misjudged, unworkable and paternalistic endeavour to interfere with those who chose to use drugs.
The place of drugs in the good society is not about the drugs as such, but rather the freedom and the value to individuals and their society of openness to experimentation and alternative behaviours and lifestyles. The good society is permissive, seeking to protect third parties from harm but not presuming to order people to take this or that view about what is in their own good.
Name one state, that has legalized marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illicit drugs for use by the general population.
Name one state, that has completely decriminalized marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illicit drugs to apply to the general population.
I'm not talking about some liberal/libertarian enclave in a socialist town or city either. I'm talking about a whole state. Show me one.
The numbers are proof positive. Look at the Pew Research Report from August 2001. 90% of American's consider drug use, a crisis or serious problem. 86% of American's believe, people have no right to do illicit drugs, even if it doesn't hurt someone else. Wake up.
Marijuana, cocaine, heroin and the other illicit drugs in America will remain illegal. Those are the facts.
When they found an illegal still they tore it down, then dumped or confiscated the whiskey.
I said "Crime is an issue" as in, it disgusts me by its continuing presence. Also, never once did I mention anything about anyone imposing morality on anyone. The word 'state' does not even appear in that post anywhere, so don't attempt to put words in my mouth.
I'd have to say you didn't win much of anything. Sorry.
actually, the last question, which you have done everything except answer was: statism or individual liberty? from sophistry to a red herring, it is a very simple question. you are also the one who asked "what is consciousness." btw, i have the right to get loaded, on tax generating booze.
I'm humbled, before your gracious words.
After your experience here, you'll be prepared!
I believe the proper response is "bwahahahah". I called your bluff, whupped your tail and now you are crying. Go home to mommy, and no you can't have your football back.
As I said, I am merely stating what I believe to be the truth: drugs should remain illegal because they are immoral. However, I never once pretended to offer some kind of solution to this problem.
Well, I offer a solution, decriminalization and regulation. Apparently your argument is "drugs icky, don't know what to do, wish them go away!". If you had a spine, you would follow your "moral" conviction and go out and arrest some drug users, because only a massive citizen and gestapo intervention will get rid of all drug use.
I never once said that I could solve it myself by, as you say, going to the local bar and stepping in. You just want me to.
Duh, like yeah I wanted to show you're all blow and no action and I did it just fine.
I recognize the fact that we can never stop drugs from entering our country, reaching our children, and polluting our society. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't still believe this is a disturbing problem.
Gee, go out on a moral limb there for us.
Now, if you see me as some kind of threat to your leftist ways, then that's too bad. So, please, celebrate all you want. Go down to your local bar/dealer and cry out, "I have met the enemy, and he is a pseudonym on an Internet posting board."
Yahooo! I'm on my way! Raise the Hammer and Sickle!
I congratulate you, sir, on winning this 'logical' debate. You have, however, still lost the much larger argument.
No,you're the one who lost the larger argument. The WOD will never succeed unless you convince tens of millions to rat out other tens of millions of their neighbors, and you sir clearly don't have the spine to start the process. Neither do any other conservatives (just checking, did Shelby's son go to jail?). So what you are REALLY for is a half ass system where middle class kids get a pass so Swat teams can go knock in doors down in the hood for fun. Some moral conviction you have.
LMAO. No wonder I don't remeber you.
Drug use creates burdens and injuries on beyond just the users.
checkmate.
That is correct, your "right to get loaded" has been completely protected. What the hell is your gripe?
Tax cheats are still put in jail as far as I know.
Wasn't Marijuana made illegal by a tax act - a tax that cannot be paid (!), no matter how much one might wish to contribute to the fiscal well being of these United States?
Could it be you are confounding taxes and prohibitions?
Isn't it funny that the title of this thread is "Why a high society is a free society"? I'd say there's been more self-expression of individualism and consciousness in this debate then there would ever be if we were all doped up at this moment. Oh well, just my parting shot of moral BS.
I stand corrected on that point, I addressed a subset of the question only (marijuana), which is slowly being decriminalized in California, Nevada (that I know of) but elsewhere too. Marijuana is de facto decriminalized, otherwise Deonne Warwick and Whitney Houston would be breaking up rocks at the state pen.
Somalia. You won't see 'em moving there though.
Careful oh chess master you haven't even managed check yet. Your question has NO answer. You are mixing a political epithet "statism" with a Human condition "liberty". The real question is where is the line between "liberty" and "licentiousness".
Yes and you prove it every time you open your "mouth". Now go away, you are annoying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.