General Principles for Controlling Substances

 

shutterstock_162691106Yesterday, Fred Cole challenged members who support the prohibition of at least some drugs to describe the first principles they use to come to their conclusions. That thread got pretty contentious, so I thought I’d start a second one answering his question.

Below you will find what I believe to be an excellent starting point for a general guiding principle related to making some drugs illegal. Before you read that, some guidelines and definitions.

By “drug”, I mean any of those substances commonly used recreationally. This includes, but is not limited to, alcohol and tobacco, as well as those substances more generally considered “drugs,” such as meth, heroine, cocaine, etc. That’s generally what we are all discussing, so there’s no need to ask question like “Oh yeah, well what about caffeine?”

By “make illegal” I mean control. By control I mean “make regulations at any level of government that specify how the substance is used, dispensed, manufactured, etc.”

By “general principle,” I mean a guiding rationale, that generally can be used as the basis for a decision, but may not be in some cases due to the specific nature of those cases.

My general principle is as follows:

There are some substances that ,when used in any quantity, render a person completely unable to function in society. Those substances should be carefully controlled. You should not be able to get those things over the counter. I would suggest that marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol are not in this group. I would further suggest that the drugs that do fit in this group should be determined by experts, such as pharmacists, medical doctors, drug and alcohol counselors, as well as recovered addicts.

My rationale is this: the use of these drugs causes undue burdens on society. Prolonged use  makes it worse. Since “we” have to take care of people who use these drugs, “we” are justified — in a free society — in controlling the drugs, and taking appropriate action against those people. We can do so and still call our society free.

So, agree or disagree?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 95 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Then explain to me what you mean, man., and how it’s different from how I rephrased it.

    • #91
  2. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Casey:Markets sort but they don’t always sort to the good. If we go legal, things might go bananas. Seems to me we ought to think things through first. We already know quite a bit about how the restrictions work and fail. It might be that in the case of deadly addictive substances, this is the best we can do.

    So the debate here is about ‘how much nannying’ free people need?  Why be so afraid of actual liberty being implemented-  is it because some things are just too ‘scary’ to leave up to individuals to decide?

    These kind of arguments against free markets have been made since Marx.  Left to their own devices, individuals just can’t be depended upon to make the ‘right’ choices.  So lets abandon this irresponsible push for individual freedoms, its just too unpredictable!

    • #92
  3. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    PHenry:

    Casey:

    So the debate here is about ‘how much nannying’ free people need?

    If you choose to put it that way…

    My only concern here is that we are pitting our current system (with all its specific and known flaws) and proposed systems (which can pick apart all day) against a system that will “sort it all out.”

    Am I supposed to accept on faith that a world sorted out is always and everywhere preferable?  Or do you have some argument to make?

    • #93
  4. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Casey:

    If you choose to put it that way…

    My only concern here is that we are pitting our current system (with all its specific and known flaws) and proposed systems (which can pick apart all day) against a system that will “sort it all out.”

    Am I supposed to accept on faith that a world sorted out is always and everywhere preferable? Or do you have some argument to make?

    I’m not exactly following what you mean by a world sorted out?  I’m not suggesting that any system can, or should be expected, to sort it all out.  Each individual sorts out his own life.  No system can sort it out for everyone in one swoop.  Like Milton Freedman and his story of the pencil, each of us, working in our own self interest, make the world go round, not some central system claiming to be able to sort it all out.

    • #94
  5. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    PHenry:

    Casey:

    I’m not exactly following what you mean by a world sorted out? I’m not suggesting that any system can, or should be expected, to sort it all out. Each individual sorts out his own life. No system can sort it out for everyone in one swoop. Like Milton Freedman and his story of the pencil, each of us, working in our own self interest, make the world go round, not some central system claiming to be able to sort it all out.

    Fred used sort out earlier in this thread.

    Of course, the communal building of a pencil is not analogous to drug use and the building of nothing.

    Just simply describe for me what a legal drug world looks like.  What would you expect to happen?

    • #95
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.