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.
Holland’s Harry Potter aims to magic away drug cafesSchoolkids toking up is not on. Jan Peter and the Dutch know better. Why certain Libertarians don't is beyond me.
Justin Sparks, Amsterdam and Peter ConradTHE coffee shops of Amsterdam, where cannabis and other soft drugs are sold openly, are under threat after the swing to the right in last Wednesday’s general election.
The Christian Democrats, likely to form a coalition with the radical anti-immigration Pim Fortuyn List, have vowed to close such cafes across the Netherlands, blaming them for the growing drug use among the young.
The party leader, Jan Peter Balkenende, a devout Christian who is expected to be prime minister, promised to end tolerance of cannabis.
“This is not a battle we’re going to win overnight,” said Marcel Maer, a Christian Democrat spokesman. “But we will chip away at the coffee shops, greatly reducing their number over the next two years until hopefully we can get rid of them altogether.”
Balkenende, nicknamed Harry Potter for his youthful, owlish looks, expects resistance not only from the shops and their users but also from his prospective coalition partners.
Fortuyn, assassinated a week before the election, was known for liberal views on drugs which some members of his List are believed to share.
The government of Wim Kok, the outgoing Labour prime minister, had reduced the number of coffee shops in the country from 1,200 to 840 — a quarter of them in Amsterdam. The amount of drugs a customer may buy was cut from 30g to 5g.
A recent report concluded that the average age of drug users was continuing to fall, however, and drug-taking was common among schoolchildren. A sharp rise in sales of hard drugs has challenged the view that tolerance of cannabis frees police to combat the trade in heroin and cocaine. Concern has also been growing over links between some coffee shops and organised crime.
“We expect rules making it harder for coffee shops to keep their licences,” said Reier Elzinga, chairman of the Association of Cannabis Retailers. “With Pim at the helm we were safe, but we’re no longer sure.”
Drugs policy is only one of the issues that Balkenende will have to hammer out with his coalition partners. Immigration could be even more contentious.Fortuyn, who called Islam “backward”, demanded an end to all immigration — a policy dismissed by Balkenende as unacceptable. Fortuyn’s heirs have made little mention of the subject since their victory, however, and seem prepared to soften their stance.
While talks continue, attention has focused on some of the more colourful MPs who were elected under Fortuyn’s banner. The party, which came second with 26 of the 150 parliamentary seats — compared with the Christian Democrats’ 43 — was formed just three months ago. Reports last week suggested that Fortuyn was so concerned about some of his colleagues that he hired a detective agency to investigate them.
One member believed to have been under scrutiny is Cor Eberhard, a sports photographer who became a pornography magnate and earned millions from erotic websites. Eberhard denies impropriety. “I’m clean as a baby,” he said.
Internal feuds have led to several resignations and only one founder, John Dost, remains. He drives a Rolls-Royce Corniche convertible and keeps a yacht in the south of France, but has faced embarrassing questions about his financial affairs.The Dutch tax authorities confirmed that in lieu of unpaid taxes, they took control of an office building in Rotterdam in which the party had its base, and seized other assets.
Dost blamed his accountant. “The tax office has forgotten to pass on information to the registry office,” he said.
Even more disappointing is the disappearance of Winny de Jong, a former model and actress who worked for the agriculture ministry and was seen as a possible succesor to Fortuyn.
“Winny’s at home in bed,” said Mat Herben, Fortuyn’s former spokesman who was chosen as party leader instead. “She’s worn out by the pressure and hasn’t been able to get over Pim’s death. It’s difficult for many of us suddenly to be at the centre of media attention.”
Regards, Ivan
Crack equals the right to keep and bear arms? As surely as a dog returns to its vomit...
Like your good buddy and pal Kevin Curry, you too support the initiation of force against innocents.
Just because a perceived authority says or writes something by no stretch of the imagination does it equate with the perceived authority being right. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot's dogma makes that patently clear, to name but a few.
All believed that they were above the law, just like you.
Or go shopping, -- I hear Omar of Hollywood is having a sale on spring mummu fashions.
And take roscoe with you, he needs a tent to stuff in his mouth.
Incredible insite to change the challenge of our laws about the Constitution. You are more than insiteful.
If running riot shooting oneself up full of drugs isn't failing to put sufficient boundaries on oneself, then nothing is. When society behaved itself, it wasn't necessary to have drug laws. Because idiots will poison themselves dead these days or become useless burdens on society, the drug laws are necessary to knock some sense into the damn fools. And that is the end of the discussion.
Ivan
You really are a hoot. You manage to create a never ending supply of straw-men "arguments" to knock down. ...Fooling only the most naive readers. But I guess that's the audience you've chosen to limit yourself to impressing.
You really are a hoot. You manage to create a never ending supply of straw-men "arguments" to knock down. ...Fooling only the most naive readers. But I guess that's the audience you've chosen to limit yourself to impressing.
You really are a hoot. You manage to create a never ending supply of straw-men "arguments" to knock down. ...Fooling only the most naive readers. But I guess that's the audience you've chosen to limit yourself to impressing.
You are correct. I should have flagged you to my post and I apologize for not doing so.
That said, I didn't think the "offending" post by headsonpikes was a personal attack requiring the moderator's attention. The heated WoD threads are usually always full of attacks to varying degrees. This one was mild.
Also, show me one personal attack I've made on this specific thread.
I'll admit that you've behaved yourself rather well on this specific thread. I have seen you attack others, including me, on various threads with what I would consider a personal attack.
The FReeper you're talking about, who was reprimanded by the Admin Moderator, is a known hit and run attack dog and a sociual malcontent, of the highest order.
Known by whom? I think his/her posts and biting humor is funny (even if it were directed at me) even though some comments could perhaps be construed as a personal attack, I think in this case it was rather mild compared to some of the stuff I've been called by you and others.
What do you consider "known hit and run attack dog" and "social malcontent of the highest order"??????? Is that not a personal attack?????
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.