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:
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
The market for drugs does not abate with legal restriction. Where drugs have been decriminalized, there is no increase in drug use or crime or anything else. Usually, there is a marked decrease in anti-social activity because black market effects are greatly reduced.
Prohibition does not work.
Rahe's argument from citizenship is a poor one. It is not for the government or even Rahe to decide what is required to be a good citizen, but the people themselves.
I don't do business with drug addicts. I don't hire them. I don't even talk to them. I don't deal with scoundrels who leave their families or blackguards who beat people. Most everyone else I know does likewise. These are the sanctions that matter.
At a fundamental level, social conservatives have more to learn from libertarians. Rahe and company conflate statute and law. That is an error.
The law is not made by lawmakers.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Those are statutory duties. One could fulfill all those duties and still be a poor citizen. In fact, your list is a subset of the Italian Fascist list of duties of citizens. It sheds no light on what a good citizen might be.
It might be useful to describe how your duties differ from the duties of men under fascism, socialism, and a free republic.
Mar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Actually, there is an even more important factor.
The success of individual liberty as an organizing principle for society depends, at the most basic level, on psychology: are external incentives (be they monetary, social, or physical) sufficient to overcome innate desires to act antisocially? Although we take it for granted, incentives only work because we possess brains which react subconsciously in ways which are beneficial both to ourselves and those around us.
The largest danger drugs pose to society is their potential for addiction, because addiction completely changes the incentive structures in our brains. Once our naturally balanced incentive structure is replaced by only one overarching desire - need more drug - the invisible hand which subconsciously created order out of chaos is gone.
Alcohol can stay legal, though restricted, because most people can avoid becoming addicted. Marijuana is even less addictive, and in my opinion should be as legal as booze. But when it comes to highly addictive drugs, be they cocaine, meth or heroin, even this libertarian scoffs at the idea that their legalization would be harmless.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I believe that the 4th and 5th amendments imply that citizens do not have an obligation to aid the police.
In much the same way that there is a difference between a good and a right, there is also a difference between a good and an obligation.
It is good to be allowed to drive a car, but it is not a right to be allowed to drive a car. To make it a right would be to give individual too much power over the safety of others.
It is good to aid the police, but it is not an obligation. To make it an obligation would be to give the police too much power over the behavior of citizens.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 7:31pmJan '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Valiuth: 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?
Edited 4 minutes ago
Is it even possible to measure the "innate addictiveness" of a substance? Seems to me that the extent to which any given substance is "addictive" varies wildly depending on who's ingesting it. I've known some alcoholics and it's pretty clear that their bodies react to alcohol differently from my body (which doesn't like the stuff). I've also known someone who used heroin regularly and heavily for more than 5 years and then just stopped, one day, because she decided she'd rather have a life.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
The Romans were quite clear that citizens had duties in their republic. There are duties we have to our fellow man, duties to our families, and duties to defend our republic. We have a duty to work and be productive at some level, otherwise we are a drain on those around us.
Libertarians seem too caught up in legalism, and the letter of the law, that they do not see the greater contracts between people. All of life is not the contract between citizens and their government. There are other social contracts between each other.
As far as the trope that Alcohol is the worst drug and it is legal, well duh. We have the most problems with it because it is legal, easy to obtain, and an integrated part of our social fabric. In fact, every civilization uses alcohol, and being able to process it is very strongly selected for in our genes.
We can argue about pot, and I think there are reasonable debates both ways. But thinng like Crack and Meth? Those drugs render people incapable of being rational actors. And their behaviors are a threat to the welfare and freedom of others.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Margaret Ball
Valiuth: 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?
Edited 4 minutes ago
Is it even possible to measure the "innate addictiveness" of a substance? Seems to me that the extent to which any given substance is "addictive" varies wildly depending on who's ingesting it. I've known some alcoholics and it's pretty clear that their bodies react to alcohol differently from my body (which doesn't like the stuff). I've also known someone who used heroin regularly and heavily for more than 5 years and then just stopped, one day, because she decided she'd rather have a life. · 0 minutes ago
Yes it is possible to measure addictiveness by looking at rates of addiction for various substances. Most people cannot just stop Heroin cold turkey with no treatment. By "most" I mean 99/100 if not more.
Jul '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Drug policy of Portugal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The book is still out on legalization vs decriminalization.
Idiots always find a way to poison themselves, some die, so it goes.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I think otherwise. Libertarians rightly reject duties without rights.
A man has duties to his family, fine. What rights does he have over his family? Under the modern state, with modern family law, he has none.
A man has duties to defend the state. What rights does he have over the state? It appears he has none. The state now has unlimited power, with regulations that are not even voted upon by Representatives.
In this post-constitutional society, citizens have duties and government has rights. This is unjust, undesirable, an unstable.
May '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
I believe that the 4th and 5th amendments imply that citizens do not have an obligationto aid the police. · 3 minutes ago
And as for defending one's country and the rest of the supposed "duties," if the country is in such bad shape that it must coerce defense, then it's not much of a country worth defending.
Even if half the country is drug addled and opium addicted, in a free country we would still have plenty of people willing to defend it. Those who can't stay off drugs should have no obligations and should not have any benefits either.
Fear the ones who tell you that you have a duty to your country.
Jul '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bryan G. Stephens:
As far as the trope that Alcohol is the worst drug and it is legal, well duh. We have the most problems with it because it is legal, easy to obtain, and an integrated part of our social fabric. In fact, every civilization uses alcohol, and being able to process it is very strongly selected for in our genes.
We can argue about pot, and I think there are reasonable debates both ways. But thinng like Crack and Meth? Those drugs render people incapable of being rational actors. And their behaviors are a threat to the welfare and freedom of others. · 5 minutes ago
Yes those drugs are horrible and end lives. So do prescription narcotics and tranquilizers which we also regulate.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Nathaniel Wright:
I think that the prohibition of drugs has led to a fetishization of them and makes creating mitigating social mores more difficult.
And you think people who ignore the law will pay attention to social mores? Dream on.
If you are saying legalizing them will result in less fetishization, that is also incorrect, particularly if you expect social mores to step up and fill the gap. Some people will always think it's cool to go against the conventional wisdom for its own sake, whether it's law or societal pressures.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 7:37pmMar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Margaret Ball
Is it even possible to measure the "innate addictiveness" of a substance? Seems to me that the extent to which any given substance is "addictive" varies wildly depending on who's ingesting it. I've known some alcoholics and it's pretty clear that their bodies react to alcohol differently from my body (which doesn't like the stuff). I've also known someone who used heroin regularly and heavily for more than 5 years and then just stopped, one day, because she decided she'd rather have a life.
There is no quantitative measure for addictive potential for all the reasons you state. On the other hand, long term experience with large groups can give a very good sense of the general addictive potential and danger associated with various drugs.
I used to work alongside the police department of a fairly drug-laden city, and the beat cops had a very clear picture of which drugs posed the greatest danger to society. Tellingly, none of them were concerned with marijuana in the least (meth and crack being the most feared).
May '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
DocJay
Idiots always find a way to poison themselves, some die, so it goes. · 2 minutes ago
They can't keep drugs out of prisons. How are they supposed to keep it out of a free society?
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Why stop at drugs? <dietary study of the week> proves that <arbitrary food component> is a far greater hazard to the public. Full ban or you must not care about children.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Margaret Ball
Valiuth: 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?
Edited 4 minutes ago
Is it even possible to measure the "innate addictiveness" of a substance? Seems to me that the extent to which any given substance is "addictive" varies wildly depending on who's ingesting it. I've known some alcoholics and it's pretty clear that their bodies react to alcohol differently from my body (which doesn't like the stuff). I've also known someone who used heroin regularly and heavily for more than 5 years and then just stopped, one day, because she decided she'd rather have a life. · 6 minutes ago
The nature of addiction is very complicated. Standardized tests can be done to determine if one compound is more addictive than another to a general population. Thus Doctors can say with very high certainty that drug X is more addictive than drug Y to most humans. Individual responses can of course vary, but a trend exists.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I see the damage done by drugs on a daily basis. The damage is not to just the addicts but their families, especially their children. The idea that Meth should be legal is laughable. Not only do I think it should be illegal, I think we have a duty as citizens to help addicts.
No one smoking Meth is a rational actor. The addiction rate for smoking Meth is 100%. It is the "walk away" drug and it is destroying families. How can someone claim to be pro-freedom by defending the "right"of their fellow Man to destroy their freedom with an evil drug. Would you stand by and let your neighbor shoot himself if you could stop him? I know that some Libertarians would say "yes" to that. What does that say about them?
I understand that the War on Drugs has caused problems with freedom. That is a reason to change how that is done.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
The main reason drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, Ethanol, etc are bad is because of behavioral changes they can cause, and because they induce dependency (ie. once dependent the subject experiences negative physical effects when unable to acquire more). These factors make them very imminently dangerous.
Food compound X in favorite snack Y does not lead to behavioral changes or addiction. Usually it increases risk of disease Z later in life, maybe. The case is weaker for action because the danger is distant and indirect. If compound X in food Y was poisonous at certain levels that could be easily reached by consuming food Y you would need to ban it from use, because the danger in immediate and direct.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
DocJay
...
Yes those drugs are horrible and end lives. So do prescription narcotics and tranquilizers which we also regulate. · 4 minutes ago
Doc, there is one category of drug that even absolutist libertarians would probably agree to regulate, at least if they gave it serious thought, and that is antibiotics. Totally random and hap hazard use of antibiotics and the potential for large scale resistant bacterial strains pose a potential existential threat.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
Alcohol, for example.
Alcohol, for example. · 59 minutes ago
Alcohol is highly regulated, in its production, distribution and consumption (more specifically, what a citizen may do under its influence).
And STILL it is abused, and STILL its abuse causes great harm to those of us who are not abusers.
So I am not sure how the legality of alcohol is a good argument for legalizing other psychotropic substances.