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.
And thank you for your views, which I understand and empathize with, but which I simply don't believe are obtainable in the manner you believe. So, my point is our differences are systematic rather than due to a collision of moral objectives. Once you realize that, then you can maybe even learn a little from people like me.
LMAO Good one Roscoe!
Yes.
A "substance" can be taxed and it can be regulated. A patient with a legally valid prescription may be able to obtain a narcotic otherwise unavailable to the public at large.
Ha.
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.
To: Zon"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." -- Thomas Jefferson
Drug use creates burdens and injuries on beyond just the users.
Being dishonest excites you, doesn't it? trimming a quote to facilitate twisting it out of context. Typical of you to stoop to such blatant dishonesty. Here's the full quote I posted.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." — THOMAS JEFFERSON
Followed by the other quote that I posted that further grounds Jefferson's words in context...
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson
No source, of course.
And the article is a screed for more than just legalizing "marijuana."
"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."
Which makes the quote even less relevant. Jefferson was talking about religious worship.
Thanks for trashing your own "point."
Another good quote. Californians voted overwhelmingly to allow for medicinal marijuana, but their votes were not 'acknowledged'. As a result, property has been taken (by the State and Feds) and a few lives may have been affected (hopefully not too seriously as you can still get anything you want, at Alice's resturant :^)
That's not true.
________________________________________________________
Heres some specific information on deaths from marijuana. Whoever said theres been no deaths caused from smoking marijuana is totally incorrect.
And heres the link. You must use Acrobat Reader.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Drug Abuse Warning Network
Annual Medical Examiner Data 1997
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
This report presents information on deaths related to drug abuse that were reported to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) by participating medical examiners (MEs).
The Office of Applied Studies in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is responsible for the operation of DAWN.
Drug-related deaths discussed in this report do not represent the Nation as a whole or, necessarily, the total of ME drug abuse cases in the respective metropolitan areas. Because ME participation in DAWN is voluntary, information described in this report reflects only those facilities that reported to DAWN during all or most (at least 10 months) of 1997. In 1997, 145 MEs in 42 metropolitan areas participated in DAWN.
Drug abuse deaths reported to DAWN may be either drug-induced or drug-related. A drug-induced death is any death in which the death was caused directly by the drug (i.e., a drug overdose). A drug-related death is one in which the ME has concluded that drug use contributed to the death, but was not its sole cause.
The terms ME drug abuse episode or case or ME episode or case refer to any death that the ME indicated was induced by or related to drug abuse. Similarly, the terms ME drug mention or ME mention refer to a substance that was mentioned in a drug abuse episode. As many as 6 drugs, plus alcohol-in-combination, can be reported to DAWN. Thus, the number of drug mentions will always equal or exceed the number of ME episodes.
========================================================
MEs participating in DAWN in 1997 reported 9,743 drug-related deaths involving 24,162 drug mentions in 42 metropolitan areas (Table 1.01).
MARIJUANA/HASHISH
— Marijuana/hashish was the sixth-ranking drug reported by DAWN MEs in 1997, [a total of 702 deaths] ,(7% of episodes) (Table 2.06a), but was usually (in 73% of episodes) present in combination with other drugs (Table 2.17).
—In ME cases reported in 1997, marijuana/hashish was most frequently mentioned in combination with alcohol (216 mentions), cocaine (196 mentions), and heroin/morphine (145 mentions) (Table 2.18).
___________________________________________________________
Marijuana is addictive (3); it adversely affects the immune system (4), leads to the use of other drugs, such as cocaine (5); it causes cancer, including cancer of the lungs, mouth, lip, and tongue (6). Marijuana also casues respiratory diseases (7) and mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and other psychoses, depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, paranoia, hostility, depersonalization, flashbacks, decreased cognitive performance, disconnected thought, delusions, and impaired memory (8). Since marijuana impairs coordination and judgment, it is a major cause of accidents (9). Babies born to women who smoke marijuana during pregnancy have an increased incidence of leukemia (10), low birth weight (11) and other abnormalities.
References:
(3)Gold MS. Marijuana, NY: Plenum Medical Book Co., p.22 7, 1989
(4)Spector S et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288:47-56, 1991; Djeu J et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 57-62, 1991; Watzl B et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 63-70, 1991 Cabral GA et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 93-105, 1991
(5)Kleber HD. J Clin Psych 49:2 (Suppl), p. 3-6, 1988
(6)Donald PJ Otolaryn Head & Neck Surg 94: 517-521, 1986 Ferguson RP et al. JAMA 261: 41 42, 1989 Taylor FM. South Med J 81: 1213 1216, 1988 Donald PJ. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 33-46, 1991
(7)Tashkin DP. West J Med 158: 635-637, 1993 Polen Mr et al West J Med 158: 596 601, 1993
(8)American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), May 1994 Schwartz RH. Pediatric Clinics of North America 34: 305-317, 1987 Cherek DR et al. Psychopharmaco logy 111: 163-168, 1993 Andreasson S et al. Lancet 2: 1483 1485, 1987 Schwartz, RH et al. Am J Dis Child 143: 1214-1219, 1989
(9)Soderstrom CA et al. Archives of Surg 123: 733-737, 1988 Williams AF et al. Public Health Re port 100: 19-25, 1985 Department of Transportation. Na tional Transportation Safety Board Report, Washington D.C., Febmary 5, 1990 Brookoff D et al. New Eng J Med 331: 518-522, 1994 Leirer VO et al. Aviat Space Environ Med 62: 221-227, 1991
(10)Robison LL et al. Cancer 63: 1904-1910, 1989
(11)Zuckennan B et al. New Eng J Med 320: 762-768, 1989
Come on BUD. You can do better than that. The Federal Government is not bound to recognize "laws" passed by "direct democracy". Our system of government was based on "Republican" to Republican" both Federal and State. The Medical Pot initiative was in direct conflict with the Constitutional supremacy clause laid out by the founders.
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.