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:
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
Paul A. Rahe
No, Fred, there is not a natural right to do with our lives what we wish so long as it's peaceful.
Forgive me. Did I misunderstand the Declaration of Independence? · 16 minutes ago
Mr. Cole,
Forgive this question, but how does a Declaration of Independence or the Constitution intrude upon the thinking of an anarcho-capitalist where money, trade, or barter purchase law enforcement as well as the judiciary, and legislature? This alternate legitimization of authority would seem to be among the ultimate expressions of lawlessness and, therefore, outside the circle of rights describe in the founding documents of the United States however consistent with legal inquiry through plutocratic show trials they may be.
In other words, what standing does your retort have if you are going to remain ideologically coherent, or is this evidence of an Alinsky dictum in action? Specifically that your opponents morals, values, etc, are to by used in aid of their subversion?
Edited on May 5, 2012 at 7:00amMay '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
If you missed it, the Weekly Standard hosted a related article on drug legalization by John P. Walters. He was decidedly opposed to the idea.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/legalized-drugs-dumber-you-may-think_642178.html
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
In a way you were right to snark as my post did not address BJRR's central question directly:
Is political freedom intrinsically different from personal freedom...?
The answer is clearly yes. None of the "4 straw men" I described are recognized as political intrusion, neither by you nor others who here commented.
Many argue that castigation for speeding violations inhibits personal freedom through the imposition of fines, confinement, or court ordered public service. Yet neither you nor any other recognized this as a matter of political freedom.
In fact, the increase in the drinking age is an area where many teens felt their rights unnecessarily and illegitimately impeded. But their political rights?
Also, the prescription medication system and scheduling in the Controlled Substances Act is directly pertinent to the reefer question so it may have escaped your close scrutiny in your zeal for a snark.
Here is one in return.
Prior to accusations of irrelevance, take a moment to wave away the smoke curling from your doobie and then take another to understand the argument engaged, not the one in your head.
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
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? · 12 hours ago
Mr. Cole
See above, please, except for the snarky retort which is in your case not deserved.
Sep '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
I think Fred Cole is actually Piers Morgan.
Edited on May 5, 2012 at 8:55amJul '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Please, Piers Morgan isn't fit to carry Fred Cole's litter box.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
This strikes me as the same sort of argument made against building a border fence.
That is, if we build a fence it won't matter because illegal immigrants will always have a higher ladder. On the topic at hand making drugs illegal doesn't matter because wannabe drunks can chug Purell.
Or mouthwash. Or something. So we must throw our hands up in despair and contemplate our utter failure to stop underage drinking, and just make it all legal. Much like how we're told illegal immigration is unstoppable, so we must accept it.
I disagree with this, obviously.
Is preventing underage drinking a worthy goal?
It seems society has answered yes, hence the various restrictions aimed at preventing that.
Have they succeeded 100%?
Plainly not. But I bet the number of teenagers willing to chug Purell or Scope is vastly smaller than the number who would buy beer at a 7-11, given the option.
Thus I conclude laws against underage drinking are at least partially, and perhaps significantly, successful at achieving their purpose, and should be retained.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole:
The other difference is that driving too fast or recklessly is a form of agressing against other people. Peaceful drug possession or use is not.
Why do you get to decide that I'm driving too fast or recklessly?
How do you get that power over me?
Perhaps I'm just exercising my right to peaceful rapid driving.
After all my speed doesn't harm anyone, anyone at all.
Until something unplanned happens. Oopsie.
But that occurs so rarely we can just ignore that possibility, right? No need for speed limits in case someone guesses wrong about the maximum safe speed, for example.
I'm serious. If I'm supposed to ignore all the costs peaceful, nonviolent drug users impose on society when unplanned events happen to them why shouldn't I also get to ignore the costs imposed by unsafe driving?
Sep '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
"the prohibition of drugs is necessary in order to promote the existence of a responsible citizenry capable of executing their civic duties."
If this is his position, it is lame. And I have deep respect for Professor Rahe.
First, it may be true, but then, many more drugs need to be prohibited.
Has anyone asked the question: Does the rampant use of psycotropic prescription drugs - prozac, wellbuterin, abilify, xanax and hundreds of others, have an effect on society? Could it be that all of these cases of "depression" and such be natural reaction of humans to our modern world? Why is it that symptoms of depression and such seem to occur only in developed countries? Is it our "crazy" world that's making people depressed? Could there be something in the food?
How does it help to react to these symptoms in people (and society) by infusing chemicals into their brains?
Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug. No one here can reasonably argue that point. It's legal. Somehow, society has survived.
Arguments for keeping marijuana illegal would be stronger if the laws were able to be enforced. But they are not able to keep ordinary people away from it.
Sep '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
I've taken all kinds of drugs in my lifetime. Right now I'm on caffiene. Last night I had a few beers (active legal drug: alcohol). I've taken a slew of legal drugs and thankfully I have kicked the habit. When visiting a doctor they ask me, "Are you on any medications", I say "No". Sometimes they are taken aback at this reply.
But I have been diagnosed with depression and have been a guinea-pig of psychiatrists "Try this. and let me know. Try that. Let's reduce your dose..etc". Anyone here have this experience? Psychiatrists are largely well-meaning quacks. The whole profession is now about dispensing pharmaceuticals and not much more. Some are better than others I imagine. It is extremely easy to be diagnosed with "depression". Ask your doctor.
I've also taken nearly every illegal drug there is. I'm not an addict in any way. I might have a problem with alcohol, (but since I'm not in denial, I might still be okay, heh)
When I went through withdrawl from psycotropics, I felt REAL depression. The world looked completly empty and meaningless. I had never felt that before.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Wylee Coyote
Please, Piers Morgan isn't fit to carry Fred Cole's litter box. · 4 hours ago
Wow. Thank you.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Can't we just start with the ability to get prescriptions more than 30 days at a time? Or the argument to intelligently deregulate pharma so that prices go down?
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/legalized-drugs-dumber-you-may-think_642178.html · 8 hours ago
In Feb 1996 the National Review famously did an entire issue on it.
And here's William F. Buckley making the arguement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTyucBinXnY
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Furius Camillus
Forgive this question, but how does a Declaration of Independence or the Constitution intrude upon the thinking of an anarcho-capitalist where money, trade, or barter purchase law enforcement as well as the judiciary, and legislature?
1. Before you talk about anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you read up on it some.
This would help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SINdTmy29cE
2. The Declaration of Independence is great because it expresses universal human truths, specifically the 35 words:
These 35 words are a universal truth. There's nothing in them (or the rest of the document) that conflicts with anarcho-capitalism.
But thanks for trying.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
And here is Milton Friedman talking about legalization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frSKscM4tAY
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
1. Before you talk about anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you read up on it some.
2. The Declaration of Independence is great because it expresses universal human truths, specifically the 35 words:
To point one, any contributor or member could rejoin by sighting titles or videos. This is not argument, however, and it does not present ones position. This is the point of reasoned discussion - the airing of views, the analysis of argument.
To point two, I am glad we can agree that there are self evident truths but the question remains, can the state tell me how to live my life for the mere purpose of not intruding on the lives of others?
I have argued that it can and demonstrated that personal freedoms may suffer state imposition with citizen sanction, and that these intrusions do not necessarily limit political freedom.
Overall, I am merely asking you for an argument tenable within your political, or a-political, philosophy. As have others.
Apr '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole: And here is Milton Friedman talking about legalization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frSKscM4tAY · 8 hours ago
Imagine if I were to advise, whenever the "reefer madness" fray sprang up, "Thoroughly familiarize yourself with the body of literature regarding the panoply of controlled substances as well as the history of opium in China."
Though this may be good advice, generally, it does not serve to edify either the audience or those having the debate.
Jul '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Muleskinner: Three years ago I was undergoing a course of chemotherapy, and not tolerating the poison particularly well. Very sick all of the time, and unable to find a government approved anti-nausea medication that would work. I finally asked my oncologist if marijuana might do some good, but was told he couldn't recommend that without getting into trouble. But he could, and did, write me a prescription for a bottle of opium. I took a lot of it over the next few weeks...
But did government really have a right to interfere with my Doctor?
I'm very sorry that you went through that, and hope that you are in good health.
I stand by my claim that the push for "Medical" mary jane has virtually nothing to do with its possible legitimate benefits. If you reside in a state (I do) that has passed one of these laws you'll have quickly noted that there is a disproportionate demand for chemo and glaucoma treatments in urban areas.
To your question: yes. To believe otherwise is to assert that laws should not apply to doctors, in principle. Though the law may or may not be useful, in practice.
Apr '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
I went to a TN drug recognition expert presentation on emerging drugs. The bath salts to which you refer are not "Calgon take me away" bath salts. The term "bath salts" is a street name for a synthetic drug originally developed to mimic khat. Khat is a small shrub native to parts of Africaand the mid-east. When chewed, khat leaves are a fairly mild stimulant. Several years ago, scientists were working to develop a synthetic form, thinking it may have some legitimate medical uses. This effort was a failure, but some "entrepreneur" found the discarded formula and used it to create this scary drug. From Clinicaladvisor.com: Side effects include tachycardia, hypertension, euphoria, hallucinations, psychosis, paranoid delusions, agitation and diminished requirement for food and sleep. The psychosis can cause extreme violent, combative and self-injurious behavior. The most profound side effects from large overdoses include seizure, rhabdomyolysis and renal failure." Here is the video included in the officer’s presentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nizXTNeie-I
Dec '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Just curious, did libertarian Milton Friedman invite Peter Robinson out for a toke after the Uncommon Knowledge interviews?
http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26920
I can't quite imagine it, but inquiring minds want to know.