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.
This seems to document the link between libertarians and buggery.
I was under the assumption that everybody already knew that.
It's not about the drugs, it's about the chillllden. Yeah, right.
Amazes me how dense people are; you completely missed the whole point of the article.
Drugs don't cause brutal street wars; the fact that drugs are ILLEGAL causes brutal street wars.
I keep reading about all the crime wars fought by organized crime over beer and whiskey... Oh, you mean that those crimes aren't being commited anymore? When did they end?
If the criminal penalties are ended, the criminal activities will end too.
Mark
Oh, wait, people who sell alchohol don't go around killing people? I thought the only people who dealt in booze during prohibition were violent hoodlums. How do we nowhave a (mostly) peaceful and above-board industry?
I've seen a number of drug legalization advocates on FR who oppose such an approach by claiming that driving is safer while stoned on marijuana.
You and yours are sure a schizphrenic lot. On one hand, libertarians are so wacky that they are insignificant, yet on the other hand, you spend a lot of time opposing and fearing libertarian influence.
Dedicating so much of your lives to the insignificant makes your lives even less significant, doesn't it?
You sure are right, I agree 100%. I think it is our duty to turn in every one we know who does drugs (I'm sure each of you knows 4 or 5 at least, unless you live in a jackrabbit hole). And we should turn in anyone who ever has done drugs, because their braincells are warped beyond repair. Well, maybe except for President Bush, and Al Gore who are kissing cousins in this regard. We should also include anyone who had an operation that required morphine, warped them too.
Now, since only 10% at best of drug shipments and users are ever caught, that means we should stand prepared to increase funding for the drug war by 1000%. Five times as many jails will be needed. Many times more police to go door to door to rid our nation of this scourge. And alcohol and cigarettes got to go to be logically consistant. Close the bars, shutter the liquor stores!
Oh, and don't forget sugar and fat, which are deadly drugs too. One causes diabetes, the other heart disease, which in combination make up by far the greatest part of American deaths. Dear Lord, we have to protect the Children from ice cream cones laced with an unnatural amphetamine like drug!
Now, I for one say hang them all, dealers and users, drugs are worse than war, in fact they are war. Fortunately, I am a prepubescent virgin and will not be affected by the strict enforcement measures, but all ye sinners better damn well stand up now and be counted.
Don't hold back Mr. Republic, certainly you should be able to name names in this proud forum, certainly of co-workers, perhaps your children, maybe your wife slipped up at some point. And on a boring night, I am sure there is a corner somewhere filled with crack whores who you can bust on your own. Make sure to report back when you have done your duty as a moral citizen, unlike the rest of the conservative hypocrits who talk big about drugs but never do anything.
Touche' eno_
You're absolutely correct. I believe all those things should be done. Funny how you thought this post would catch me out in some kind of hypocrisy. It's too bad that I 1) don't do drugs 2) don't have family members who do drugs, and 3) think that all forms of drugs are morally reprehensible and should be severely limited and, in most cases, made illegal.
So yes, you have said all that should be said. Thank you sir.
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.