Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
James Delingpole has raised a useful question. Let me start by saying that we should take Ron Paul and the radical libertarians at their word on the question he recently posed: Why is it we can’t put into our bodies whatever we want?
The simple, straightforward answer is that some substances make one a danger to everyone else. Marijuana may or may not be such a substance. That is an empirical question. That some substances have this effect is, however, perfectly clear. Which ones they are deserves debate and rumination. The abstract question can, however, easily be answered.
There is another issue that deserves reflection as well. Some substances leave one incapable of performing one's duties as a citizen. I have meth especially in mind. One of those duties is that one take proper care of one's children, and meth produces in its users (as we see in rural Michigan all too often) a lassitude incompatible with the performance of that particular duty.
In general, let me say, libertarians could learn a lot from social conservatives -- and vice-versa. Liberty presupposes responsibility, and libertines who foster irresponsibility are paving the road that leads to serfdom.
- Comment (108)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe:
There is another issue that deserves reflection as well. Some substances leave one incapable of performing one's duties as a citizen. I have meth especially in mind. One of those duties is that one take proper care of one's children, and meth produces in its users (as we see in rural Michigan all too often) a lassitude incompatible with the performance of that particular duty.
Question for libertarians: Would it be fair to say that part of the difference between conservatives and libertarians relate to whether one in fact has "duties as a citizen?"
Jul '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bill Clinton asked a similar question but got in trouble.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
This line of questioning came up for me today in response to Rick Santorum's attitudes about online gambling (which are decidedly non-libertarian). The problem is, once we decide the state shall intervene to rescue people (or even only their dependents) in severe financial straights, it's only reasonable to start asking if we need to regulate their behavior to prevent further costs to ourselves.
This also came up last year, I recall, in the UK where officials began asking if fat people ought continue to burden the National Health System disproportionately. In the context of a country with an NHS, why not use state power to tell fatties to hit the gym?
Systems of pure (or nearly pure) communism or liberty are fairly easy to comprehend. Anything in the middle (as is the case most everywhere) is doomed to perpetual political vexations over fairness, compassion and cost.
Maximum liberty gets my vote.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I sense a joint Delingpole/Rahe podcast coming on. You up for it, Prof?
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Alcohol, for example.
Alcohol, for example.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
It either comes down to absolute liberty with its attendant consequences to both the self and the public or absolute tyranny with its consequences. This sounds a little Hobbesian to me. If we attempt to find a middle way we will be stuck forever attempting to find the sweet spot where liberty is maximized and consequences minimized without ever finding it. The only possible exception is found in Locke who believed humanity capable of far greater self regulation than I've ever seen displayed in the church parking lot after the service lets out.
Jan '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bring back prohibition! (I'm not joining the Ricochet Temperance League)
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
Alcohol, for example.
Alcohol, for example. · 4 minutes ago
Alcohol occupies a very contradictory place in our society. I give you my work as an example. If I take nyquil or a benedryl (or any medication that may cause drowsiness) I am disallowed from performing any of my primary tasks until our competent medical authority deems me no longer under the effects of such substances. However, if I was so inclined I could have a few beers or other adult beverages after work, become drowsy from the effects, even become inebriated, and yet the following day I go to work and do whatever tasks I'm assigned as though I had ingested no mind or mood altering substances at all. Kooky.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
1) Alcohol is legal. What banned substance either makes a user more hazardous to their fellow citizens or reduces their ability to fulfill their duty as citizens more than alcohol?
2) If you are comfortable telling a person they can not place certain things in their body because it makes them a danger or because it reduces their ability to be useful citizens, are you comfortable with forcing people to place things into their system in order to make them less of a danger or to increase their ability to fulfill the duties of citizenship-In this case I am thinking of psychoactive drugs like prozac and ritalin.
I am also viewing this question in how it relates to certain areas of this country banning salt, trans-fats, msg, not allowing aspirin to be advertised as a way to prevent death from heart attacks, and forced birth control efforts. I am not stupid. I know just because a person is against legalizing heroin doesn't mean they are for forced sterilization, but I would like to know the "litmus test" people are using to decide that the banning or enforced prescribing of one is thing fine and another is not.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 6:52pmNov '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I think another thing aspect that should be examined in this discussion is the unintended consequences. For example, there seems to be a pretty strong relationship between aggressive prosecution of drug use (or more particularly, drug trafficking), and the rise of harder, more addictive, and more dangerous drugs. And there's the effect of drug conviction - and even arrests that don't result in prosecution - on employment prospects. The War on Drugs has been an essential element in creating an American underclass.
Jul '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Yes!
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Sounds like fun.
May '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Just what, pray tell, are these "duties of a citizen?"
Meth is a nasty drug, as is cocaine and opium, but I'll be hanged if anyone tells me I have "duties of a citizen" that go beyond jury duty and otherwise minding my business.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I disagree. I think that is only true if we deal with the issue only in the abstract. If we actually bring the discussing into reality by discussing what real policies we would like to see implemented, as oppose to the abstract principles that guide those policies ,I think we can make the incremental tradeoffs (in this case freedom vs tyranny) that real life requires.
I don't think that a person who believes that Alcohol and Marijuana should be legal, but Heroin and Escatasy should not is necessarily inconsistent. Its quite possible they looked at the pro and cons of legalization in each individual case and came to different conclusions based on the different real life factors involved.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 6:59pmRe: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Fredösphere: This also came up last year, I recall, in the UK where officials began asking if fat people ought continue to burden the National Health System disproportionately. In the context of a country with an NHS, why not use state power to tell fatties to hit the gym? . . .
Maximum liberty gets my vote. · 21 minutes ago
We are closer to being in agreement than you might think. Socialism -- which is what the NHS involves -- is incompatible with individual responsibility. Leaving it to individuals to take care of their own health is consistent with individual responsibility, and it encourages responsible conduct. When you pay for your own foolishness, you have a tendency to be less foolish.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Nyadnar17
I disagree. I think that is only true if we deal with the issue only in the abstract. If we actually bring the discussing into reality by discussing what real policies we would like to see implemented, as oppose to the abstract principles that guide those policies ,I think we can make the incremental tradeoffs (in this case freedom vs tyranny) that real life requires.
I don't think that a person who believes that Alcohol and Marijuana should be legal, but Heroin and Escatasy should not is necessarily inconsistent. Its quite possible they looked at the pro and cons of legalization in each individual case and came to different conclusions based on the different real life factors involved. · 1 minute ago
That's called the political process. We do it better than any other nation on earth and we haven't perfected it 236 years into the practice.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Skyler: Just what, pray tell, are these "duties of a citizen?"
Meth is a nasty drug, as is cocaine and opium, but I'll be hanged if anyone tells me I have "duties of a citizen" that go beyond jury duty and otherwise minding my business. · 2 minutes ago
You have plenty of such duties. One is to help defend your country. Another is to come to the aid of the police in matters of crime. A third is to rear your children to be lawabiding and responsible citizens. I could go on. Freedom is inseparable from obligation.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I also think that the questions "Why can't we put into our bodies anything we want?" and "Should the government decide what we get to put into our bodies?" are quite different questions.
My mom was a heroin addict. She died from the addiction. It started as marijuana addiction and over a course of many years her disease progressed as she pursued more powerful escapes from the world.
Alcohol is addictive and harmful -- more addictive than marijuana -- but when one consumes alcohol one does not always do it for the euphoric high and it is easy to control doses to get a mere buzz.
Because marijuana is illegal it is difficult to use that substance similarly. How does one know how much THC is in the dose? How does one control it? How does one use it socially?
If it were legal, these are norms that could come to the fore.
Government can regulate whether you drive under the influence, as you present an immediate risk -- alcohol is more impairing than marijuana though both impair.
I think that the prohibition of drugs has led to a fetishization of them and makes creating mitigating social mores more difficult.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
Skyler: Just what, pray tell, are these "duties of a citizen?"
Meth is a nasty drug, as is cocaine and opium, but I'll be hanged if anyone tells me I have "duties of a citizen" that go beyond jury duty and otherwise minding my business. · 2 minutes ago
You have plenty of such duties. One is to help defend your country. Another is to come to the aid of the police in matters of crime. A third is to rear your children to be lawabiding and responsible citizens. I could go on. Freedom is inseparable from obligation. · 0 minutes ago
Indeed. The other side of liberty is responsibility. Drug legalization seeks a two-headed coin.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
One should note with respect to toxic substances (alcohol, THC, Cocaine, Meth, Nicotine, etc.) that their effects are very dependent on dosage. Your body can metabolize most of these compounds. In low quantities none of them are harmful. All of them can become the foundation for physical and psychological addiction that leads to greater and greater exposure to the toxin.
The questions to ask are: What is the innate addictiveness of the compound, at what concentrations does it lead to impaired functions, and how easy is it to expose ones self to such a dose? This will tell you how to rate the drugs in order of potency and danger. The primary reason to fear drugs is their immediate behavioral alterations, not long term exposure health risks.
We can agree that some drugs have really bad effects even at low doses, and people should be encouraged to avoid using them. Especially if the drugs cause dependency. Should we then penalize suppliers and distributors? I say yes. They can be accused of creating a public danger to others by enabling very destructive behavior. If you ran a suicide business where you sold suicide kits, you should go to jail.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 7:11pm