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:
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
BJRR
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.
We have. And we made drugs illegal.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady
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. · 1 hour ago
And yet there is a natural right to do with our live what we wish so long as it's peaceful. I'll extend that to the right to put in my body whatever I wish.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Xennady
We have. And we made drugs illegal. · 15 minutes ago
Who is "we"? Because I sure as hell wasn't asked.
Apr '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
Xennady
We have. And we made drugs illegal. · 15 minutes ago
Who is "we"? Because I sure as hell wasn't asked. · 2 minutes ago
I think Xennady is using the Royal We.
Feb '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
Who is "we"? Because I sure as hell wasn't asked. ·
The same "we" that made speed limits on interstate highways ridiculously slow.
And I wasn't asked about that either.
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Do I really need to do this? What is it about drug warriors that makes them throw rationality out the window?
The differance between speed limits and drug prohibition is that one has the option not to drive on public roads. Drug prohibition criminalizes private possession and private acts.
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.
Jun '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Drug use is not conducive to good citizenship. My experience is entirely anecdotal, but %100 of the homeless in my community are addicted to drugs, alcohol, or both. The health and policing costs to take care of this "community" are huge. Not to mention the cost of cleaning up their encampments and the losses due to petty crime. The same is pretty much true for our endemic welfare class. And people seriously want to legalize it?
If you want to know what endemic drug abuse can do to a nation, read the history of China during the Opium Wars. The short story is that opium addicts funded the dismemberment and conquest of the world's most populous nation at the hands of foreign powers. Tell me how legalizing opium would have helped China?
I fully support legislation that requires anyone on government assistance to be drug tested. Our present policy will lead to national suicide if it continues. It's a lot like giving AIDS victims a prescription for viagra - which I know for a fact is done in New York. Can someone give me a better definition of insanity?
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
All together now:
Correlation is not causation!
Most of those homeless from your anecdote are probably mentally ill and they're using drugs and alcohol to self medicate.
Mar '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Yes, they use the bath salts because they're legal. I have heard plenty of anecdotal that the reason is not that they believe it's safe. On the contrary, they know it's horrible. Rather it is because it is available. Outlawing some drugs creates artificial demands for other products that skirt the law and which are usually much more dangerous. Crack only became popular when blow (as the president calls it) became hard to get. It became economically preferable to make it something more concentrated and dangerous. The fact is that a nanny state fosters a lack of responsibility, whether it's by giving you welfare or telling you what you can or cannot put in your body.
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
At least you can't actually by bath salts at 7-11 (despite the innocuous sounding name). But kids are now chugging hand sanitizer to get drunk. Should we start banning or carding for Purell? I used to be for keeping drugs illegal, but recently I have started to rethink that position. What we're doing clearly isn't working.
Edited on May 5, 2012 at 12:20amJun '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
All together now:
Correlation is not causation!
Most of those homeless from your anecdote are probably mentally ill and they're using drugs and alcohol to self medicate. · 13 minutes ago
How do you know this? I'll admit my evidence is entirely anecdotal, but it's what I see on the street everyday. The number of able-bodied young people in Santa Fe who hang on street corners with a cardboard sign is appalling. The sign says "hungry." Uh-huh. Just see what happens when you offer them food.
May '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
I have a strong enough Libertarian streak to appreciate the double standard around narcotics and am sympathetic as well to the argument that the current efforts around enforcement have proven entirely ineffective. (How can we trumpet the failure of the Great Society without also casting a clear eye on the War on Drugs?) I also believe the Prohibition analogy is apt.
However I end up in the ~Paules camp. Outside of Amsterdam, San Francisco is about as permissive an enforcement culture as you could want. People here smoke openly in front of the police. But the net effect is to denigrate the community. There are entire parks where I cannot take my children, streets I cannot walk down without getting the smell of ambient cannibis in my clothing and whole areas of town that are overrun with the stoned and high.
I don't want to live in a place where drugs are consumed publicly (and I'm not ready to abandon San Francisco to the hippies.) So despite the philisophical inconsistency with personal freedom, I find myself voting against legalization simply because I don't want to encourage drug use around my family any further.
Jan '12
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
This subject has been exhaustively treated on Ricochet many times. Comments in this thread only rehearse pleadings that have been dramatized before. My own Burkean observation that the relative harms of alcohol vs. marijuana are not as cogent in deciding legality as the fact that alcohol has been part of the Anglo-American tradition for centuries if not millenia whereas marijuana is comparatively alien--this assertion too has seen better days.
A question that has not been explored (as far as I know) is the question of federalism. Does the constitution warrant the federal government to assume the police power regarding intrastate trafficking and use of marijuana and other such drugs (I'll assume that we all know more or less which drugs are "other such")? A Madisonian or a Jeffersonian would say that the Constitution leaves such issues to the several states. Under such an understanding of governance, most likely the situation would differ from state to state. Arguments for or against legalization would play out in those arenas. A grasshopper living in Utah may then wish to relocate to more fumacious climes--assuming he can rouse the energy to leap from his stupors.
Oct '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Though I'm in favor of drug legalization short of meth and heroin, I am sympathetic to Paules and Trace Urdan's arguments here. I think that N.N.'s position is the most sensible. Get rid of federal restrictions and let the States experiment. Then people can vote with their feet if they're unhappy with the local situation.
Edited on May 5, 2012 at 4:17amDec '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
BJRR: 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?
The thing about psychotropic drugs is that they directly act on the citizen's faculties of judgment and responsibility. Tobacco and caffeine don't (much), alcohol does, and illicit drugs do even more.
I don't think the words "sensible use" match up with cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine.
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Fred Cole
Xennady
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. · 1 hour ago
And yet there is a natural right to do with our live what we wish so long as it's peaceful. I'll extend that to the right to put in my body whatever I wish. · 6 hours ago
No, Fred, there is not a natural right to do with our lives what we wish so long as it's peaceful. We also have obligations to our neighbors, our local communities, and to our country. Anything that renders us incapable of performing those obligations lies outside the realm of privacy protected by limited government. As I argued in my discussion with James Delingpole, some drugs that are now illegal may not have such an effect. Others arguably do.
The principle is, I think, clear. How best to apply it is a matter for prudential judgment.
Jul '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Blue Yeti: At least you can't actually by bath salts at 7-11 (despite the innocuous sounding name). But kids are now chugging hand sanitizer to get drunk. Should we start banning or carding for Purell? I used to be for keeping drugs illegal, but recently I have started to rethink that position. What we're doing clearly isn't working. · 3 hours ago
Edited 3 hours ago
Okay. Is the solution to allow 7-11 to sell crack?
We both know it isn't. Oh, but that isn't fair I suppose.
It's just marijuana. I mean, how can you object to this one little brick? And it's for people with glaucoma.
Hooey. We all know it isn't for glaucoma sufferers, it's for a bunch of self-indulgent weenies (I have nothing against the breed, being one) who want what they want, including limits to the liabilities of their behaviors.
By the way, what exactly constitutes a drug interdiction policy that is working? My definition is: my kids aren't using. What is yours?
Nov '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
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?
Dec '10
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Since this is a discussion about adventures in responsible citizenship, it should be noted that the U.S government has a long history of dealing amphetamines to citizens who had their fingers on various kinds of triggers ... guess that means illegal drugs are a danger to good citizenship except when operating lethal weapons, in anger.
Dec '11
Re: Some Thoughts Concerning Drugs
Palaeologus
It's just marijuana. I mean, how can you object to this one little brick?And it's for people with glaucoma.
Hooey. We all know it isn't for glaucoma sufferers, it's for a bunch of self-indulgent weenies who want what they want, including limits to the liabilities of their behaviors.
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. I'm not entirely sure that it helped with side effects of the chemo, or whether it made it so that they didn't matter so much.
Oddly enough, I'm not addicted to opium, and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have gotten addicted to marijuana. But did government really have a right to interfere with my Doctor?