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.
It helps addicts get 8 hours sleep - so they stay hooked longer!
By ROSE BROWN
BOGOTA, Colombia - Colombian drug lords had a problem: Their best customers kept dying due to health problems caused, in part, by lack of sleep.
Say hello to "Crack P.M.", a new cocaine product with a sleep additive that lets addicts get high but still enjoy the health benefits of a full night's rest.
And Drug Enforcement Agency insiders admit the terrifying new drug has received rave reviews from addicts in all three U.S. cities where it's been test-marketed by Columbian kingpins.
"It's fantastic," a Miami security guard who claims to have been hooked on crack for the last three years told reporters.
"I used to show up for work all bleary-eyed and starved for sleep. Now I switch to Crack P.M. after dinner, hit the sack by 10, and wake up refreshed and ready to get high and put in a full day's work."
An all-night New York cabbie also gives the new drug a big thumbs up.
"Sleeping during the day isn't easy when you're buzzed out of your mind. Crack P.M. changed my life."
DEA watchdogs confirm the terrifying new drug is the brainchild of Colombian cocaine kingpin known only as "The Viper".
He reportedly told Colum-bian newspaper through his attorneys: "You can't make money when your customers keep dropping dead. Most Americans live past 70. Your average crackhead never sees 50.
"We had to do something."
"Now crackheads get their sleep, employers get better work, and our customers stay hooked for many more years!" beamed The Viper. "It's win-win for everybody."
The Viper refused to confirm rumors about New Crack with Extra Vitamin C, but smiled and said, "If it keeps them alive and buying, I'm all in favor of it."
Published on: March 1, 2002
I don't need to. It isn't necessary.
"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By a universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
"I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." --Thomas Jefferson.
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
"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
Jefferson wasn't a simpleton, so he wasn't a Libertarian.
Roscoe, you should read the cites before you attempt to pretend that they make your case. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the law.
The Controlled Substances Act leaves "no doubt that the medical necessity defense is unavailable." Supreme Court, eight/zip.
Would you support a proposal for decriminalized possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use, on the condition that users surrender their driver's licenses in advance?
No. Not anymore than I would support revoking driver's licenses for people that buy alcohol. It is the person that can chose to do good or do bad. Cite for me even one instance where an object all by itself harmed a person? Does a gunharm a person without another person pulling the trigger.
People -- not guns -- kill people
People -- not matches -- cause arson.
People -- not drugs -- cause crime.
Are individuals capable of self-governing?
If people are not capable of self-governing themselves how is it that they would be capable of governing others.
"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 to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24How and why individual rights prevail over the illusion of group rights.
The smallest minority is the minority of one -- the individual. When the individual is protected all larger-than-one minorities as well as the largest majority are protected. The largest majority is the human species.
Whenever possible, universal constants are preferred to relatives. Universal constants are constant across all cultures and times whereas relatives change from culture to culture and generation to generation or century to century.
Universal constant: The highest moral, human and individual right is the right to self-defense against the initiation of force, threat of force or fraud. The proof is that without one's own life a person has nothing, nada, zero, zip.
Universal constant: Every instance that force, fraud or coercion is initiated against a person that person experiences a loss of value to his or her life. Only the victim knows how much his or her life was, is and will be diminished by the person that wielded initiation of force, fraud or coercion against him or her.
When plaintiff decides that arbitration will not meet plaintiff's needs, trial by jury is the best recourse that a plaintiff has for gaining restitution for plaintiff's life being diminished by the initiation of force, threat of force or fraud.
The plaintiff must convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he or she has been the victim of initiation of force, threat of force or fraud by the defendant. Also, plaintiff must express the loss of value plaintiff suffered and express what plaintiff seeks in terms of restitution or compensation for plaintiff's loss of value.
Here's a short, partial list that a plaintiff might bring charges against a person whom the plaintiff claims victimized him or her. All cases can be settled via trial by an impartial jury.
Plaintiff claims defendant initiated force, threat of force or fraud against plaintiff by:
Defendant killed person that is close relative or close friend to plaintiff. This is a logical choice of who would be first in line to become plaintiff. E.g., spouse, child, sibling, etc.
Defendant assaulted victim
Defendant stole from victim
Defendant blackmailed victim
Defendant ingested drugs
Defendant sold drugs to third party consenting adult
Defendant viewed pornographic material
Defendant sold pornographic material to third party consenting adult
Defendant sold sexual favors to third party consenting adult
Defendant engaged in gambling with third party consenting adultThe burden is on the plaintiff to prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he or she has been the victim of initiation of force, threat of force or fraud and to what extent the plaintiff has been damaged by the defendant.
The bottom line is: if the jury agrees with you/plaintiff you're right and win the case. If the jury disagree with you/plaintiff you're wrong and lose the case.
Well, how bout YOUR insistance that our RKBA's can be violated by state or local government? - Thats MORE.
And, -- seeing that we admittedly have a right to smoke tobacco, - common sense, [& common, constitutional law] would tell me that right extends to smoking any damn thing I please.
The Second Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
And the constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, -- that states and localities must follow. YOU 'boldly' DISAGREE with our basic principles.
Suggesting that drug users have an equivalent right to smoke crack dishonors our Constitution.
Not at all, -- smoking is clearly an un-enumerated 9th amendment right.
Best Regards!
Buckeroo
There isn't a single Supreme Court decision which makes law. Congress has the sole authority to make law given that the law itself is restricted to the territories under Federal control. The Congress has no authority to pas laws which assert jurisdiction over citizens within the 50 states.
Do you know what the issues were in that particular SC decision or did you just copy that from somwhere and assume it applied?
No.
TANSTAAFL
You want legalized dope and free access to our public roads and the driving privilege. Society can just absorb the burdens, injuries and resulting deaths.
Libertarianism is the free lunch philosophy.
So do you. Unless you are in favor of banning alcohol that is.
The headline is always the key. This one summed up the debate rather well.
Nice going... Take something compelety out of context... I posted this:
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.
You decided to only quote the last statement: The fact is that organized crime "lost interest" in liquor (for the most part) when prohibition ended. That was the point where the profit no longer made the risk acceptable. In fact, until the drugs that are now illegal were criminalized, there was very little crime associated with them as well. Now, due to the fact that they're illegal makes the risk worth the profit, there are gang and organized crime wars over drugs. And with the skyrocketing taxes imposed by the feds and the states, crime relating to cigarettes is begining to increase as well. Simple economics.
Mark
Do you ever tire of repeating yourself?
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.