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 if we legalize murder, the resulting murders will just be society leveling itself out, right? (Sarcasm)
It is obvious to even the casual observer that Roscoe/intersect/ significance is a null set.
Well, yes. If crime is legalized, the immediate result will be zero crime. Of course, we will still having people getting killed, kids being kidnapped, etc. etc., however, the crime rate will still be at a zero level. You see, there is method in the madness of these people.
Being stoned is their norm. They don't know what it means to be sober.
I've thought of doing a spreadsheet of costs/benefits, but it would take a little thought. For example, the cost of drug enforcement includes but is not limited to: bloated police forces, extra jails, time lost from work by users in the legal system, courts, juries, lawyers, the inflated cost of drugs, deaths due to lifesaving drugs held from the market, the cost of the FDA, many etcs.
And then on the opposite side are the very real costs of drug addiction, work injuries, lost productivity, etc. I suspect, however, that the true cost of the WOD dwarfs the negative drug costs.
FACT: All laws, by their nature, restrict a certain degree of freedom--the freedom to do as one pleases, whenever one pleases, regardless of the harm or potential harm to oneself or other. Civilized society has the right and the responsibility to regulate behavior in order to protect individuals from their own poor decisions as well as others from the risks of certain behavior. Drunk driving, traffic regulations, possession of explosives and weapons, incest, and child labor are but a few examples. Those who want to legalize drugs would have you believe that individules who choose to engage in illegal behavior bear no responsibility; but, instead, the law is to blame, even though most of our citizens elect not to violate the law. The legalization advocates focus on the rights of drug users while ignoring the rights of the public. Based on their philosophy, it is acceptable to allow a very small segment of our society to get high with impunity while placing the majority in great jeopardy from their intoxicated state. Based on their theory, drunk driving should not be against the law. A drunk should only be punished after he or she has a traffic accident and kills or maims someone.
Additionally, the majority of our citizens do not fear law enforcement. It is those few who choose to violate the law who feel threatened by the police. They seek protection of their own freedom while they choose to violate the freedom of others.
Deputy Chief Thomas J. Gorman California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
Difficult to tell, isn't it? In my parent's day (Great Depression kids) and their parents day, no problem. Their could have been offered all the drugs they wanted for free and they would not have taken them. A half a century of liberal mind rot latter, I don't know how bad it might get if the more serious drugs were legal.
Ah, but you chickened out on the tough part. Surely you have neighbors and friends and co-workers who do drugs (unless you have already gone to heaven and live on 'Paradaiso Street'). Therefore I call on you right now to name them in this Forum. You can start your moral Jihad for righteousness right now. Please don't delay in taking this big step!
Well, I don't see the sort of gangland style crime that waged during the days of prohibition, at least not where alcohol is concerned. And I don't believe that there was anywhere near the level of drug related crime that we see today, before drug use was criminalized...
Mark
I agree, and I am a civilized man. Therefore I suggest that you be put in a strait jacket to protect yourself from your poor (investment, drinking, diet, driving, marital, etc.) decisions. In fact, liberals believe the same, they would protect you with a straitjacket from your poor (environmental, abortion, freesex, religious, taxes, etc.) decisions. I am so stupid, please inform me which humans' decisions are so omniscient as to be the ruling factor? Perhaps your ideas are the controlling ones? Or where should we find the proper moral dictator to figure it all out?
The fact of the matter is this: the legalization of drugs creates no benefits, and it only causes more pain than already exists now.
Perhaps now you'll point and scream, "See, he's all talk and no walk!" And, what would you suggest I do instead? I'm not a political leader, nor am I a criminal judge. I am, like you, voicing my opinion in a place where it is not heard, and no good comes of it.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
I believe that there may be a day when cigarettes and alcohol are banned, while marijuana and heroin and cocaine are legal. I have noticed that the people who often rant and rail about cigarettes don't seem to be concerned about other drugs. I. E., the anti-cig crowd, may not necessarily be anti-pot. Does anyone ever get this feeling?
Well written article Mr. Lied. Probably don't agree with many of your points, but no question you have written well here. It is too late at night for me to analyze indiviudal arguments within your piece (I expect to read it over again) but I am going to throw out some questions/issues, for you and other Freepers.
1. Suppose down the road, if marijuana were legalized and it could be shown that people who took pot over an extended period had become ill, would it be appropriate to initiate law suit against Big Pot, as we do today, against Big Tobacco?
2. Cigarette smoking is banned in almost all public venues, such as sports arena and stadia. Would pot smoking be subject to a similar type of ban? Part of the arguments that pro-pot people often use involves stating that 'what people do in the privacy of their homes should NOT be subject to government regulation. Agreed. But my experience, particularly as a big rock concert fan, is that people with pot, LOVE to flaunt it in front of others, where it can be a health hazard. So will pot be treated similar to cigarettes in terms of use in public areas?
3. The pro-pot crowd, one can assume, is probably pro-environmental. Now suppose some fellow with a joint, and a real 60's ponytail, says to me, 'hey man, we have to stop those corporate polluters. They are killing our air and water." Should I listen to that person? Of course I should! He does indeed know about pollution!
Wow! Where in my posting did I ever say that we should decriminalize "people getting killed, kids being kidnapped, etc..." I made a specific point about the fact that criminalization of drugs makes the sale of illegal drugs extremely profitable: The drugs themselves are cheap, it's the risk involved in the distribution that makes them expensive. And that money drives the criminal element. If we decriminalize drugs, the profit motive goes away.
This has nothing to do with decriminalization of murder or kidnapping.
Mark
Actually, based on the philosophy stated, then all sales of alcohol should be immediately banned. What are the statistics of traffic accidents caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol, as opposed to dui of illegal drugs.
Mark
Legalize it, and put them out of business.
How does a person smoking a joint violate the freedom of others?
Talk about madness, let's analyse your logic a little. "we will still having people getting killed, kids being kidnapped," These things are already happening WITH a background of drug usage, and WITH a War on Drugs, so it is just as easy to argue (using your own loose logic), that the War on Drugs CAUSES people getting killed, kids being kidnapped. Of course, that is just as vacuous a logic as your feeble offhand attempt to link cause and effect.
If legalized drugs lead to "kids being kidnapped" then certainly there should have been massive kidnapping sprees between the Pilgrims and Prohibition. If it led to "people getting killed", surely homicide rates should have been through the roof. Care to show proof of the Mad logic you have just proposed?
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.