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:
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Yes, indeed.
Oct '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
As a flaming libertarian, the fundamental issue to me is whether one owns one's own (yikes—did I just write that?) body or whether the state (or as statists prefer to say “society”) does. If it's the state, then the individual is, in part, a slave to whatever polity in which he or she happens to be born. People born in Saudi Arabia or Iran, unless they get out, have a different list of things they can ingest, which they had no rôle whatsoever in deciding.
But there's a utilitarian argument against prohibition which is completely unrelated. In every example of which I am aware, consumption of prohibited substances has dramatically increased after the state attempted to prohibit them, with a spiral of ever greater abuse and more intrusive and severe enforcement. One might paraphrase Bourne and say “prohibition is the health of the state”.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
Skyler
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. · 20 minutes ago
In time of war, all countries have to resort to the draft. You are dreaming, my friend. · 6 minutes ago
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of conscription in 1918.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Stuart Creque
Misthiocracy
· 59 minutes ago
So I am not sure how the legality of alcohol is a good argument for legalizing other psychotropic substances. · 24 minutes ago
Prohibition of alcohol is the BEST argument against prohibition of
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 8:16pmother substances. Just think, if not for prohibition, we would not have to deal with that vile band of scum the Kennedy's.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
John Walker:
But there's a utilitarian argument against prohibition which is completely unrelated. In every example of which I am aware, consumption of prohibited substances has dramatically increased after the state attempted to prohibit them, with a spiral of ever greater abuse and more intrusive and severe enforcement. One might paraphrase Bourne and say “prohibition is the health of the state”. · 0 minutes ago
John, you should read a book entitled The Alcoholic Republic.
Mar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Stuart Creque
I am not sympathetic to arguments for legalizing illicit drugs so long as I have to pay for the consequences of others' abuse of those drugs. If a substance abuser lapses into dependency on others and cannot provide food and shelter for himself, much less his dependents, may we at long last be allowed to let him starve or die of exposure or die of untreated disease or injury, rather than being forced to pay taxes to deal with the consequences of his choices? ·
This is exactly my point: in a society in which everyone is responsible for their actions and the actions of their children, including the medical and financial consequences, the disincentive to using drugs will be much stronger than any legal or societal prohibition.
I will admit that I am not a big fan of letting people die in the streets of preventable illnesses, but as I mentioned above, I also do not support legalization of highly addictive mind altering drugs. However, I think a large step in the direction of decriminalization combined with personal liability for behavior would be a benefit to society.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Heroin, cocaine, bath salts . . . the list is long. Most people can drink without becoming a danger to anyone.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Foxman
Jim Beam is distilled in a dry county. · 2 minutes ago
Ironic I know. The point still stands there is more to man than money and you can not just depend on economics to keep our worse natures in check.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Nyadnar17: 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. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
I do not know enough about prozac and ritalin to be able to frame an answer to your question. It all depends on what sort of danger they pose. We incarcerate some people because they are dangerously out of control, and I see nothing wrong with that.
But to address a related question where I do know something, I do favor mandatory inoculation against dangerous diseases that are so easily transmitted that an epidemic is likely. This is a matter of self-defense, and in such matters the political community can legitimately act on behalf of its members.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
Paul A. Rahe
Skyler
Misthiocracy
· 20 minutes ago
· 6 minutes ago
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of conscription in 1918. · 5 minutes ago
What is legal and what is right are not necessarily the same thing.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
That is arguable. It depends on how one defines rates of consumption.
During prohibition, for example, overall consumption of alcohol absolutely did drop. Much less alcohol was sold and consumed in the United States during that time.
However, those that did consume alcohol consumed much more of it at a time, so drunkenness arguably increased.
Good law-abiding citizens who previously would enjoy a glass of wine or a bottle of beer with dinner stopped doing so, so the overall volume of alcohol produced/consumed dropped.
However, those who took the time and the risk to patronize a speakeasy weren't going to be satisfied by a glass of wine or a bottle of beer. If they were going to assume that level of risk, they were gonna get drunk.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
Stuart Creque
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. · 5 minutes ago
If one's justifications for banning a certain substance also apply to alcohol, as I suggest Dr. Rahe's justifications do, why is alcohol legal?
(Furthermore, why was a constitutional amendment required to ban it?) · 33 minutes ago
Edited 32 minutes ago
Most of us can drink without being a danger to anyone. No constitutional amendment was needed for banning alcohol at the state level. Once upon a time, ours was a federal republic.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Foxman
Misthiocracy
Paul A. Rahe
Skyler
Misthiocracy
· 20 minutes ago
· 6 minutes ago
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of conscription in 1918. · 5 minutes ago
What is legal and what is right are not necessarily the same thing. · 6 minutes ago
True. But there are times when conscription is necessary for national defense. It is pretty hard to protect individual rights in the wake of a foreign conquest.
Mar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I think social contracts and financial incentives are much closer than you imagine.
Why do people want money? Money in the bank has no intrinsic value. People want money for three major reasons: to improve their own comfort, to improve the lives of their offspring, and as a tool for sexual selection. In other words, we desire financial wealth primarily in order to accrue social wealth, which provides an even stronger incentive. What do wealthy men tend to spend money on? Items which make them more sexually attractive.
If women would withhold sex from men until the man guaranteed he would take responsibility for his sexual actions (i.e. take care of his child), that incentive would change men's behavior more than any law or societal prohibition. However, as long as our system rewards single motherhood, this scenario will not come to pass.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Um, Crassus was a real estate speculator. That's where his money came from. I am not sure of your source, but all land was not owned by the Republic. Things might have been different in the Empire
Misthiocracy
There was no right to private property in ancient Rome, as all land was the property of the Republic. It was acceptable, and preferred, to extract confessions through the use of torture. While ancient Rome is an example of a republic, is not an example of a free and democratic republic.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
a) I dispute that statement. I believe most people who consume alcohol do become a danger to others at some point in their lives. Who among us can honestly claim that they have never driven while impaired? Who among us can honestly claim that they have never consumed enough alcohol that it impaired their ability to make rational decisions? At that point, the alcohol has made the individual a potential danger to others, even if that danger does not happen to be realized.
Whether the danger is high enough to warrant a ban on alcohol is perfectly arguable, but I do not believe alcohol has no effect on the amount of danger an individual represents to others, in most cases.
b) Where is the evidence that "most people" cannot consume marijuana, cocaine, or heroin without becoming a danger to others?
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Fredösphere
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. · 56 minutes ago
Maybe if Dr. Rahe specifiedmoralduties and Skyler specifiedlegalduties, we could have an agreement here.
Or, to put it another way, libertarianism is only a theory of government, not life. Wasn't it John Adams that said our Constitution assumed a devout people, and was doomed for any other? Liberty without self-control equals chaos. · 29 minutes ago
Amen.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
Foxman
Misthiocracy
Paul A. Rahe
Skyler
Misthiocracy
· 20 minutes ago
· 6 minutes ago
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of conscription in 1918. · 5 minutes ago
What is legal and what is right are not necessarily the same thing. · 6 minutes ago
True. But there are times when conscription is necessary for national defense. It is pretty hard to protect individual rights in the wake of a foreign conquest. · 2 minutes ago
I started a thread on the member page on this topic, if people are interested in the issue of the draft.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
a) I dispute that statement. I believe most people who consume alcohol do become a danger to othersat some pointin their lives. Who among us canhonestlyclaim that they haveneverdriven while impaired? Who among us canhonestlyclaim that they haveneverconsumed enough alcohol that it impaired their ability to make rational decisions? At that point, the alcohol has made the individual apotential dangerto others, even if that danger does nothappento be realized.
Whether the danger is high enough to warrant a ban on alcohol is perfectly arguable, but I do not believe alcohol has noeffect on the amount of danger an individual represents to others, in mostcases.· 1 minute ago
On this matter, you are picking nits. A negligible danger is not worth greatly worrying about. But the answer to your question is that we have to weigh the costs of prohibition against the benefits, as I have intimated above.
Mar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
a) I dispute that statement. I believe most people who consume alcohol do become a danger to others at some pointin their lives. Who among us can honestlyclaim that they have neverdriven while impaired? Who among us can honestlyclaim that they have neverconsumed enough alcohol that it impaired their ability to make rational decisions?
The difference between alcohol and some other drugs is the ability to prevent repeating the mistake.
You are correct, almost everyone has done something stupid and regrettable while drunk, but most people feel enough shame and embarassment afterword that they change their drinking habits to prevent repeat behavior. Alcohol's addictive potential is weak enough for most people to overcome it with their own willpower.
A drug as addictive as meth may be so powerful that even a user who is cognizant of the negative consequences may not be strong enough to overcome the desire to use again. Which other drugs fall into this category is, as Prof. Rahe said, an empirical question which many ER doctors could probably give a good answer to.