Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
I have just finished listening to the Radio Free Delingpole podcast in which the host and Paul Rahe discuss drugs, society and the role of the state as a mediator between the two. Paul Rahe seemed, as elsewhere, to be arguing that the prohibition of drugs is necessary in order to promote the existence of a responsible citizenry capable of executing their civic duties.
Now, I wouldn’t for a minute want to dispute the fact that a state requires a base of responsible people able to make rational decisions. What I would want to push back against, though, is the idea that responsibility can be encouraged by reducing freedom of choice. Does it make sense for the state to say to individuals, ‘We want you to be responsible and independent, but you are absolutely not allowed to do x, y or z because they’ll make you irresponsible’? Does the notion of a responsible and independent citizenry even hold any meaning when all the ‘irresponsible’ choices have been banned?
I think the question boils down to one of trust in the fundamental wisdom of the people. This, after all, is what we rely on in democracies, and rightly so. If the state trusts people, that is, if we trust each other, enough to make decisions about the fate of our nation, shouldn’t we trust them in deciding their own fate? Why should the right to start and/or vote for a political party whose sole aim was to instigate a nuclear war be sacrosanct, but the ownership of a given plant species or chemical compound be a crime? Both actions might well put me and others around me at risk, given the right circumstances, and neither are responsible. If we don't trust each other (explicitly) to make the right choices about drugs, why do we trust each other (implicitly) to make the right choices about nuclear weapons or even economic policy?
Is political freedom intrinsically different from personal freedom, or is it special only in so far as it represents all other freedoms?
- Comment (67)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Well put.
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Would you also, then, argue against all speed limits and castigation for their violation? A responsible community of drivers should be able to choose the wise course and be fostered to this purpose. Same with stop lights and signs. Why impede the freedom of individuals to go travel in a straight line?
Likewise, we should do away with the driver's license as the state should foster a responsible citizenry not one forced to follow draconian measures curbing their ability to drive by the tool of state sanction.
And let us not forget the drinking age. Teens (because we have disposed of licensing) should be empowered to decide whether they will drink and drive. [Check the stats regarding alcohol related deaths when the drinking age was moved from 18 to 21!]
Then we should dispose of the prescription medication system. Individuals should be able to decide their own courses of medical treatment to include the use of controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act.
Though you and those of your ilk may find them trite, these are substantive concerns you must address in order to put forward a coherent position in the categories you described.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Wonderful. And when drugs are legal then libertarians can smoke pot without worrying about The Man harshing their mellow.
Of course plenty of people won't stop with pot. They'll go on to heroin or something worse.
Many of those folks will end up unable to work or take care of their children or will commit crimes to get drugs.
And then other people get to suffer with those consequences, whether they want to or not.
Keep drugs illegal.
May '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
If drugs are legal, more people will use drugs. The More drugs that get used, the more addicts we will have. Right now, kids have started using the so called "bath salts" because they are legal (that is changing fast). "They wouldn't sell me something that was bad for me".
The number one drug we have problems with is legal. Since we have enough problems with it, I don't want to add any more drugs to that number.
Are there issues around enforcement? Yes. Do I support Drug Courts and Treatment Options instead of mass incarceration? Yes. Do I think seized money should go to law enforcement? No. Do I think legal drugs would eliminate illegal ones? Well, considering the rich organized crime trade of cigarets across state lines, I have to say No.
America does not need any more addicts. Addicts do not just hurt themselves, but their families, their friends, their employers and their communities.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Kids use bath salts (which, yes, will soon be illegal, thank GOD for the nanny state to protect us from bath salts) to get high because it's available. Kids getting hurt using bath salts as drugs is a direct result of prohibition. Don't use the negative consequences that result from prohibition as an argument for prohibition please. Government causes a problem and then you claim the only solution is more government.
Of course we have bigger problems with legal drugs. That's because they're more widely available. It's easier to get hard pain meds for pain control than it is to get marijuana (where I live anyway) so people use, and get hooked on, harder but legally available meds.
The reason there is a cross state line trade in cigarettes is avoiding taxes. Government action creates that problem. If government creates a problem, please don't use that as a justification for more government action.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Furius Camillus:
Though you and those of your ilk may find them trite, these are substantive concerns you must address in order to put forward a coherent position in the categories you described. · 23 minutes ago
You consider comparing drivers licenses to marijuana prohibition a coherent position?
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
The questions I raised weren't supposed to be rhetorical. I was wondering what people might think about these kinds of issues, so thanks for raising these points.
As far as your points are concerned, I wouldn't have much problem with ending the prescription system; it doesn't follow that people would no longer seek the advice of medical professionals.
And questions of road-safety, could it be argued that the state owns the roads, so it sets the rules?
I'm stuck on the question of DUI, though...
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady: Wonderful. And when drugs are legal then libertarians can smoke pot without worrying about The Man harshing their mellow.
Of course plenty of people won't stop with pot. They'll go on to heroin or something worse.
Many of those folks will end up unable to work or take care of their children or will commit crimes to get drugs.
And then other people get to suffer with those consequences, whether they want to or not.
Keep drugs illegal. · 9 minutes ago
There are millions of people who can and do safely and responsibly use drugs.
If you're concerned that people will get high and drive their cars, then make that illegal.
If you're concerned that people will neglect their children as the result of being drug addicts, then make child neglect illegal.
If you're concerned that people will turn to thievery to support their drug habits, then make thievery illegal.
But don't punish people who can handle their drugs.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
BJRR
I'm stuck on the question of DUI, though... · 0 minutes ago
What are you stuck on?
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
This wasn't really what I was getting at. I know that there are lots of practical arguments for and against legalization, but I was trying to get to grips with what seems to me to be a kind of theoretical/philosophical double standard.
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
BJRR
I'm stuck on the question of DUI, though... · 0 minutes ago
What are you stuck on? · 5 minutes ago
The argument I adopted above was to say that something which poses a potential danger to others isn't necessarily a reason to outlaw that thing. I think drink-driving should be illegal, so I obviously have some more thinking to do.
Apr '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Furius Camillius: Well done! 4 Straw-men slain in one comment! Why conflate transportation with recreation? I don't recall anything in the above post advocating the repeal of DUI laws, traffic laws or licensing requirements. Are all of those required in order to enjoy a "Doobie" in the privacy your own home?
As for Brian G & Xennady, your arguments seem to boil down to 'Some people may act in ways that I disapprove of. Let's not let them do that!'
Either liberty is of intrinsic value and must be protected, or we end up getting to choose between one set of philosopher-kings or the other. Preventing someone else from engaging in self-destruction is an individual activity, not one for the State.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
BJRR
Fred Cole
BJRR
I'm stuck on the question of DUI, though... · 0 minutes ago
What are you stuck on? · 5 minutes ago
The argument I adopted above was to say that something which poses a potential danger to others isn't necessarily a reason to outlaw that thing. I think drink-driving should be illegal, so I obviously have some more thinking to do. · 31 minutes ago
Well, the problem with driving under the influence is that it impairs driving and leads to reckless driving, which is a direct danger to others.
Since there's some small number of people who drive better when they're drunk or high (the latter I witnessed personally once), if you wanted to be logically consistant, you'd be able to accept reckless driving laws.
In a recent thread last week sometime I pointed out that there's no need for laws against driving while using a cell (talking or texting) because the real offense (reckless driving) is already covered by existing laws.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Yudansha:
As for Brian G & Xennady, your arguments seem to boil down to 'Some people may act in ways that I disapprove of. Let's not let them do that!'
Wrong. My argument is that some people will expensively wreck their lives and stick me with the bill. I seek to prevent that.
Yudansha:
Either liberty is of intrinsic value and must be protected, or we end up getting to choose between one set of philosopher-kings or the other. Preventing someone else from engaging in self-destruction is an individual activity, not one for the State.
Stop dressing up your mundane desire to get stoned with fancy pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
There is no sacred right to get high.
Get over it.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
BJRR
This wasn't really what I was getting at. I know that there are lots of practical arguments for and against legalization, but I was trying to get to grips with what seems to me to be a kind of theoretical/philosophical double standard.
I don't see any sort of double standard. I see people who want to elevate a matter of public policy- subject to the same sort political constraints and considerations as many other issues- into some sort of great moral and ethical qualm.
I'm supposed to be brought up short by the Deep Thoughts as presented by people who want to get high legally, and then conclude that pot smoking is a sacred right.
Obviously that approach is not working with me.
Apr '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
BJRR,
Are you familiar with D'Souza's book Godforsaken? In it, he discusses the very questions about the freedom to choose poorly you address above. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. It's very persuasive.
Full disclosure: I have never met D'Souza, have no financial interest in the book, and I can't read or write. (my Mommy helped me type this)
Apr '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady
Yudansha:
As for Brian G & Xennady, your arguments seem to boil down to 'Some people may act in ways that I disapprove of. Let's not let them do that!'
Wrong. My argument is that some people will expensively wreck their lives and stick me with the bill. I seek to prevent that.
Yudansha:
Either liberty is of intrinsic value and must be protected, or we end up getting to choose between one set of philosopher-kings or the other. Preventing someone else from engaging in self-destruction is an individual activity, not one for the State.
Stop dressing up your mundane desire to get stoned with fancy pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
There is no sacred right to get high.
Get over it. · 28 minutes ago
Are a mundane desire to get stoned and fancy psuedo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo mutually exclusive?
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady
BJRR
This ... standard.
I don't see any sort of double standard. I see people who want to elevate a matter of public policy- subject to the same sort political constraints and considerations as many other issues- into some sort of great moral and ethical qualm.
I'm supposed to be brought up short by the Deep Thoughts as presented by people who want to get high legally, and then conclude that pot smoking is a sacred right.
Obviously that approach is not working with me. · 7 minutes ago
But I don't want to get high, I don't think doing so is a 'sacred right' and I hadn't thought of what I wrote as 'Deep Thoughts'. It was just a sequence of my thoughts. I didn't want it to 'work' with anyone, I was just interested learning what other ricocheteers might think about the questions I posed.
And as for elevating the prohibition of drugs 'into some sort of great moral and ethical qualm', would you agree that we need to think carefully before restricting people's liberty? I think we do.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
There are millions of people who can and do safely and responsibly use drugs.
And there are millions of people who can and do safely and responsibly exceed the speed limit in their personal vehicles.
So what? Speed limits still exist.
Hey, wait a minute. You've got a point.
Let's eliminate speed limits. Since I have great confidence that I can safely travel at whatever speed I wish on any road I wish to drive upon speed limits are obviously a grave injustice against me. And did I mention that I would be driving my personal vehicle? Plainly it's no one elses business what I do with my personal vehicle, because it's mine.
I'm surprised I've never noticed this before. Speed limits are a great moral and ethical dilemma, and their existence shows that Western Civilization is built upon a lie.
I almost forgot. If anyone is worried about pedestrians getting run over by people exercising their right to travel in their personal vehicles- no problem.
We'll just make accidents illegal. Problem solved.
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Yudansha: BJRR,
Are you familiar with D'Souza's book Godforsaken? In it, he discusses the very questions about the freedom to choose poorly you address above. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. It's very persuasive.
Full disclosure: I have never met D'Souza, have no financial interest in the book, and I can't read or write. (my Mommy helped me type this) · 16 minutes ago
I'm not, but it sounds worth a read.