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.
Make one and we can talk about it.
Watch out or I'll sic my pet beaver on you!
Or stampede a moose in your general direction. ;^)
On the one hand, you have many, public service announcements or ads, throughout America advising citizens not to smoke, not to drink. On the other hand, you have NORML saying, It is NORML to smoke marijuana. And they use a quote by NYC Mayor Bloomberg (who obviously did inhale) saying, sure he smoked it and he enjoyed it.
Contradictory messages. Don't smoke cigarettes, don't drink. Do take pot!
There is a romanticism attached to pot, that is such that many refuse to even consider that the drug might be harmful. We know that cigarettes and tobacco (in excess, that is) can be harmful. But with pot, somehow we're still not sure, yet, if it is harmful at all!
Pot, let's face it, was the drug of choice for the Woodstock generation. Bob Marley lighting up a joint, is a much more appealing image than Joe Camel luring America's youth to cigarettes. After all, who smokes cigarettes? Just ordinary, middle to lower class Americans? But who lights up a joint? America's cultural elite. Make no mistake about it: the anti smoking crowd is NOT necessarily anti marijuana.
...as long as YOU dont make it yourself (freedom?), to threaten a tax base. alcohol agents used to be called REVENUE agents for a reason. yawn.
I would agree decriminalizing personal drug use IF (and this is a big if) we had stricter penalties for people driving under the influence of drugs and alchohol or for people who commit crimes under the influence of drugs and alchohol.
However, if we were to decriminalize personal drug use I don't see the above happening.
So along the lines the author wrote about, based on equal laws you would think without stricter laws for driving or committing a crime under the influence of alcohol, alcohol should be made illegal?
Therefore, I find it difficult to support decriminalizing drugs for that reason alone,
And for that reason alone alcohol should be made ilegal?
though on the civil liberties side I tend to agree.
So on the civil liberties side you tend to think alcohol should not be prohibited/illegal.
I don't mind giving people enough rope to hang themselves ..... just not to hurt others.
So you think stricter laws would dissuade people from hurting others while under the influence? You don't want to give them the alcohol rope because they may be negligent and hurt others and thus you think alcohol should be illegal?
Looking for consistency and rational principles. All crimes that initiate force, threat of force or fraud should be prosecuted or remedied to ensure restitution is awarded to the victim for his or her loss. An "accident" under the influence is negligence and constitutes initiation of force. Having one set of laws for alcohol and one set for drugs is worse than have one set of laws for assault and another set for assault that is deemed/proclaimed hate crimes.
Apparently you set up a near impossible scenario to achieve the legalization of drugs in which to maintain consistency you would have to make alcohol illegal. But to have consistency of, and with rational principles, both drugs and alcohol must be legal.
Sure you can. Your burden is to show that the Founders fought a Revolution to "throw off the shackles of England's prohibition on intoxicants".
Well for one that can't correctly use the term ad hominen I would say you have not made your case.
No they don't. They're passing pro-marijuana initiatives in lots of states, so your "overwhelming numbers" statement is a falsehood. 30% also believe in UFO's and Psychic experiences anyway, I thought we were debating the merits of drug legalization.
the wod gang never answers this though.
if it is not YOUR consciousness to do with what you will, WHOSE consciousness is it?
the answer they really dont want to face is: your consciousness is the property of the STATE, who will tell you what you may or may not do with it.
its hard to admit being a statist.
No, drug threads are no challange at all. But feel free.
Begging the question.
"What is truth?" Isn't Pilate's evasive query the very archetype of a reality-denying lawyer's question?
I must confess, however, that I do indulge in one addictive substance: I just gotta have my caffeine.
Whoa Nellie, that was out of left field. I am left speechless :)
Well that was easy.
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.