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?
Misthiocracy
b) Where is the evidence that "most people" cannotconsume marijuana, cocaine, or heroin without becoming a danger to others? · 4 minutes ago
Where, pray tell, did I suggest that most people cannot consume marijuana without becoming a danger to others?
As for cocaine and heroin, the evident is clear. Consumed in very small amounts they usually do no real harm. Consumer in larger amounts they are addictive in the extreme -- and from this flows a great deal of harm to society.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
Misthiocracy
b) Where is the evidence that "most people" cannotconsume marijuana, cocaine, or heroin without becoming a danger to others? · 4 minutes ago
Where, pray tell, did I suggest that most people cannot consume marijuana without becoming a danger to others?
As for cocaine and heroin, the evident is clear. Consumed in very small amounts they usually do no real harm. Consumer in larger amounts they are addictive in the extreme -- and from this flows a great deal of harm to society. · 4 minutes ago
Anything smoked is addictive. Small amounts of Crack or Meth will become large amounts in short order.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bryan G. Stephens
Paul A. Rahe
Misthiocracy
b) Where is the evidence that "most people" cannotconsume marijuana, cocaine, or heroin without becoming a danger to others? · 4 minutes ago
Where, pray tell, did I suggest that most people cannot consume marijuana without becoming a danger to others?
As for cocaine and heroin, the evident is clear. Consumed in very small amounts they usually do no real harm. Consumer in larger amounts they are addictive in the extreme -- and from this flows a great deal of harm to society. · 4 minutes ago
Anything smoked is addictive. Small amounts of Crack or Meth will become large amounts in short order. · 11 minutes ago
Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. It reduces inhibitions.
Heroin is an opiod that moves into the brain far faster than morphine and directly acts on the limbic system, causing both euphoria and relief from pain.
Cocaine blocks neurotransmitter reuptake - like Prozac times a thousand - causing euphoric pleasure. Meth stimulates neurotransmitter production as well as blocking reuptake. Both cause instant pleasure.
Compared to alcohol, the other drugs (heroin, meth and cocaine) act more directly and strongly in the brain as pleasure-rewards, encouraging reuse and promoting increased dosages.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Heck, one dose of XTC can permanently reduce the seritonin in your brain.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bryan G. Stephens
Paul A. Rahe
Misthiocracy
b) Where is the evidence that "most people" cannotconsume marijuana, cocaine, or heroin without becoming a danger to others? · 4 minutes ago
Where, pray tell, did I suggest that most people cannot consume marijuana without becoming a danger to others?
As for cocaine and heroin, the evident is clear. Consumed in very small amounts they usually do no real harm. Consumer in larger amounts they are addictive in the extreme -- and from this flows a great deal of harm to society. · 4 minutes ago
Anything smoked is addictive. · 1 hour ago
Especially sausages.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
During times of war or military emergency, when a dictator had been appointed, it was the ultimate right of the state to convert the property of individuals to public use, without compensation.
This was a rare occurrence, of course. Indeed, this authority is largely what led to the downfall of the Republic itself. Regardless, dominium eminens ultimately resided with the State, not the individual.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
During times of war or military emergency, when a dictator had been appointed, it was the ultimate right of the state to convert the property of individuals to public use, without compensation.
This was a rare occurrence, of course. Indeed, this authority is largely what led to the downfall of the Republic itself. Regardless, dominium eminensultimately resided with the State, not the individual. · 11 minutes ago
Your statement was that Rome did not have property rights. Clearly they did, but those rights were at risk. Considering Kelo, I rather think the comparison between America and Rome is a good one.
Feb '12
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I don't see a place to email the managers of ricochet with suggestions, so I'll put one here: it would be very good to set up the software to allow reply threads to individual comments rather than forcing all replies to go 20 comments later at the end. It's just the same as in scholarly seminars: what we need is dialog, not a series of unrelated speeches, so questions and comments along the way during a talk (economics style) is much better than a queue at the end (law school and Liberty Fund style). Also, this allows two commenters to go at it with each other with attention by everybody else optional.
Feb '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Any discussion about this should start with brain chemistry and how different chemical agents act on them and not some airy-fairy philosophical argument. (But then I think all philosophy is airy-fairy with only the slightest tangential relationship to evidence and facts. Which is why I basically detest philosophy.)
Where's your data?
Feb '12
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Addiction is one point, but not the most important one. If this were a good thing to be addicted to, we wouldn't worry.
A better reason to ban heroin is that we'd rather live in a society where people do not use it. Why? Because we don't want our friends and children to use it, and we are willing to give up our own ability to use it if we have to (as with paying taxes). This is the majority opinion, as evidenced by Americans' willingness to pay to police drugs.
Why do Americans not want other people to use drugs? We could go into that, but libertarians should not ask that question--- they should just accept that that is what Americans want. If they want something else, they can go to a different country. It would be even better to make this a matter for state law, I agree--- as is done with alcohol on the county level.
Here's another way to think about it: Should a group of people be allowed to build a subdivision where alcohol is banned? If you forbid them, then you do not expand liberty. America is a big subdivision.
Feb '12
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
The difference between wine and heroin is that it can be good for a person to consume wine and bad to consume heroin, in most people's opinion. Moderate wine-drinking causes no problems. It can be an aesthetic pleasure, something special to human beings and independent of the effect of the alcohol on the brain---- the alcohol is needed as a solvent for flavors. It can be abused, but there is legitimate use too.
Heroin does not have a legitimate use. It turns a person into an animal, and gives them the same kind of pleasure as it would give a dog. We can unequivocally say it is bad. There are indeed some cases where it may be good, but morphine is legal for those in great pain, so heroin is superfluous.
If the pleasure of heroin is good, then oughtn't we to consider the pleasures of dogs and cats as important as those of our fellow humans?
Sep '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
As I said in James' original thread: if you're piloting an airplane, I don't want you to be free to "put in your body whatever you want". A pilot has to be absolutely on top of his/her mental game. Even if you're not carrying passengers and no one else gets hurt, it would be a waste of a good airplane.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Why do you label social conservatives as "angry"? Because you disagree with them? If you can't substantiate it, it is an ad hominem attack. On balance, the libertarians sound a lot more angry although admittedly from my subjective point of view. Either way, it's not useful to the discussion to use such a dismissive label.
And, please identify with precision exactly which straw men you are talking about, so we can begin deconstructing them-- if that is what they really are.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 11:56pmJan '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bryan G. Stephens
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.
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. · 4 hours ago
You're right, I hadn't looked at it that way. Obviously large-scale studies are more useful than anecdotal evidence; after all, it's not as though I were socially acquainted with lots of heroin users (as far as I know)
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
No, my statement was not that Rome did not have property rights.
My statement was that Romans did not ultimately own their land, as we understand the concept of ownership.
Roman law (particularly the Twelve Tables) gave landholders rights and protections from the actions of other citizens. It also stated that the state could not take land from one private individual to benefit another private individual.
On the other hand, I know of no Roman law that prohibits the state (embodied by the Senate, or the Consul, or any other assembly or magistrate) from appropriating land for public use.
In fact, it explicitly allowed the Greater Comitia to make decisions on the life or liberty of a Roman citizen.
The difference between the Roman Republic and the United States is the Fifth Amendment (nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation).
Roman law, AFAIK, placed no such restriction on the state.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
I fully concede, however, that there can greatly divergent interpretation of the ancient Latin in Roman legal texts.
If you are good with Latin (which I am not), here's a link to the Twelve Tables in the original Latin.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
By your logic, people in Turkey don't own their own land because they don't have our bill of rights. I really don't think that can be argued to be the case.
Mar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
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 law-abiding and responsible citizens. I could go on. Freedom is inseparable from obligation. · 5 hours ago
Another is the duty you owe to yourself simply by virtue having been born a human being. Those unalienable rights don't come without a price, you have the responsibility to exercise them responsibly. Our problem is that our society has lost sight of that last part and thinks of liberty and license as the same thing.
Sep '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
Alcohol, for example.
Alcohol, for example. · 7 hours ago
These mentions of alcohol, which seem to be a tu quoque or "you're another" argument, do not advance the cause of any other substance or all other substances. The circumstance that men are allowed to consume one substance that is dangerous or dissipative, or is considered to be so, does not entail anyone's accepting the consumption of two, twenty, or all such substances. When disputants reason this way, it seems to be because they imagine that others are bound or compelled by some sort of law requiring uniformity of action in all matters the disputant thinks are somehow the same. However, men are not bound by such supposed "chains of reasoning," nor compelled by such "force of logic." They are after a decent society and a good life, and the circumstance that they are thwarted in some respect does not entail their thwarting themselves in any other.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Well put Douglas.