Printable View
I agree that there are many automobile accidents caused by drink driving but the anti-drug laws that we have, prevent a similar situation arising through people using drugs. If we have an accident problem because of alcohol, it is senseless to compound it by allowing further intoxicants to be taken?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
In what way would the legalization of drugs be "compounding the problem"? Under the influence of marijuana, and other hallucinogenic drugs people are usually very careful and drive cautiously. Under the influence of CNS stimulants people usually drive the way if they had not taken any drugs. CNS depressants have effects that are similar to alcohol, but people often drive while under the influence of legal CNS depressants now. Most of the people who drive while under the influence of drugs that are presently illegal are already driving under the influence of alcohol, so the net effect would be safer roads, because they would be using things that would have less negative effect on their driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
That is not the view of the medical authorities, if it were, they would be recommending issuing marijuana and hallucinogenic substances to drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
You may be giving too much credence to the so-called "medical authorities". When you see an announcement from them, the medical part has been reduced so that it will fit what politicians want said. One example of that is the matter of alcohol consumption and heart health. The experimental results show that the more alcohol one consumes, the healthier the heart, but public is falsely told that moderation is best, even when heart health is involved. On the other hand, the experimental results announced are not always what actually happened in the experiment. One should be extremely careful about relying on the so-called "medical authorities".Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
I haven't quite bowed out of this thread although I may do after answering your last two posts.
1. Alcohol and tobacco are often cited as a reason for legalising other narcotics:
When the English colonists of Virginia introduced tobacco to Europe in the 17th century, they thought it was a good idea;we know now that it wasn't. After the link between smoking and health was made in the 1950s, the UK government didn't try to ban it as that would have led to a black market and cries of human rights violation. Instead, they chose to hammer home the heath risk for the next 50 years to the point where many people, myself included, gave up smoking altogether. A further extension of this tactic has been the recent anti-passive smoking campaign
It looks like alcohol will be next on the agenda and hopefully that will go the same way in due course, even though I drink quite heavily myself. If people can be persuaded to give up stimulants that are damaging to their health, not to mention their wealth, that must be more sensible than allowing them to continue regardless of the consequences.
2. I mentioned the medical use of drugs in my first post.
3. If the inclination to take illegal substances is tackled in the same way as that used for the elimination of legal drug use, in the long term the drug barrons will lose out to common sense, even though there will remain certain sections of the community who will still use to them. The bottom line is that
nobody, outside of medical necessity, needs to take drugs. For those who still insist on doing so, it should be done within democratically enacted constraints.
4. Obviously I dont know that every law that has ever been enacted throughout history has been just, but what I do know is that respect for the rule of law is the bedrock of civilisation and that its opposite is anarchy.
And what about people who realize its negative health effects and choose to drink or smoke regardless? We must not "allow" them to continue, to put their own health at risk if they so choose? I know many people who turn to cigarettes or alcohol (or bad food, or sex) as a means of, for one instance of a positive benefit, relieving stress. They understand that they are putting their health at risk, but it is a trade-off that they choose to make. I think that it is an excellent idea to encourage drug abstinence through non-coercive tactics. But freedom is ultimately about choice, and a free government should not be able to regulate such behaviors, because I don't think you realize just how murky the line becomes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Does the government have the right to pass a law forcing unmarried couples to abstain from sex until they are married? Certainly this would cut down on the number of STDs contracted, and also the number of unwanted pregnancies. You justify banning drugs on the grounds that they can be detrimental to one's health, and certainly an individual can contract STDs through sexual intercourse. Do you honestly believe that pre-marital relations ought to be outlawed? If not, how can you justify holding both positions without engaging in hypocrisy?
Another example: should homosexuals be allowed to even exist in society? No, I am not a homophobe. However, there are many (typically Christian fundamentalists) who believe that homosexuality is harmful to society, and even that the social acceptance of it precipitates deaths, natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Can you legally ban and restrict it on this basis? What if the majority in a democratic society believes so?
The first part of your arguments isn't really supported by...Well, anything, so I don't feel the need to argue with it. As for the second part: there are few things we do in life that we actually need to do. I don't need to eat an ice cream sundae to stave off my hunger, and you don't need to drink alcohol for nourishment. You also don't need to sit and post on an Internet message board; you do it (presumably) because you enjoy it, or because it provides mental stimulation, or because it helps you relieve stress, or because you find it exciting. That's the beauty of life -- it is not a monotonous parade of everything we must do or need do; to celebrate life we do things we want to do, and so long as somebody's purely unnecessary, possibly even irrational desires don't infringe on my or somebody else's rights, that is perfectly fine with me. The government certainly can't legislate "need," or ban ice cream sundaes for that matter.Quote:
3. If the inclination to take illegal substances is tackled in the same way as that used for the elimination of legal drug use, in the long term the drug barrons will lose out to common sense, even though there will remain certain sections of the community who will still use to them. The bottom line is that
nobody, outside of medical necessity, needs to take drugs. For those who still insist on doing so, it should be done within democratically enacted constraints.
The opposite took place in 1776 when a group of anarchists we Americans like to call the "Founding Fathers" defied the official law of Britain and formed a free, independent nation. "An unjust law is no law at all."Quote:
4. Obviously I dont know that every law that has ever been enacted throughout history has been just, but what I do know is that respect for the rule of law is the bedrock of civilisation and that its opposite is anarchy.
sex puts your health at risk?
You've obviously never tried to have physical relations with Brigitte Nielsen.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexar
Al:
I have not gotten into this debate because it is beyond my pay grade, but can say one thing.
Tobacco is losing the addiction game, and coming from me, this is a net win for the nanny state. Cigarettes not only kill their users, but those around them. I am a poor writer barely hanging on in public housing, and until recently, smoked a pack a day. There were three smokers on my floor, and the cigarette odor was distinct in my hallway. One of these smokers moved upstairs, one died, and I am in a major struggle to end my addiction, sucking fake cigarettes for dear life, one, because I have given myself emphysema, and puke up phlegm in cycles that can be agonizing, and two, because I am tired of feeling guilty about the air quality on my floor. Tobacco cigarettes may not quite be illegal yet in the U.S., but it will be, give or take twenty years.
Having said that though, not every dangerous behavior can be regulated, I agree, but tobacco smoke is a social health hazard which has no real justification in defense of personal autonomy. Even my maintenance man had issues with his boss, my apartment manager, about smoking in the front of the building--though the company backed off a little on that. They did not come after me, too many tenants here smoke, but pressure on negative behavior doesn't have to be official.
Another reason I am fighting with it now is direct injury. I lit my hair on fire and cost Medicare and Medicaid thousands of dollars for my medical treatment, and have burn scars, which, though I am not vain, have made me resign myself to the fact that I'll probably never make love with anyone again, since I was too disabled for the standard pressure shirt treatment, and don't have a Bill Gates to fund plastic surgery.
What you are asserting is the same fundamental argument that has come up dozens of times through the course of this thread: drug use and drug users are a potential threat to others, and so drugs (in this case, tobacco) ought to be outlawed. The issue is that word "potential." If I were to smoke in the privacy of my own home, where the pollutants I exhaled would not cause harm to anyone who did not enter my home voluntarily, am I creating a social health hazard? Or if I consume alcohol, am I creating a hazard to all drivers currently out on the road? Perhaps -- but not necessarily, and certainly not in the vast majority of cases.
No, it isn't that simple. I am just picking one instance, and personally, I probably can't kick the habit. Cut down, yes, but I will probably die, like Cafavy, from some form of cancer, and I can only blame myself, not for losing to the addiction, so much as starting it. On the other hand, I am unhappy with my disability, and dying in my 60's with cerebral palsy is better than dying in my 80's with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
The underlying conflict isn't the drug, per see, but personal autonomy over and above social good. I can't help the broken body. It will cost the state unless the state at some point can no longer accept the burden of the cost. But the consequences of tobacco, in a social context, are monumental, and not just in the west. This is the reason social acceptence of cigarettes has so rapidly eroded. Fairly soon, I imagine, the FDA will get to regulate both tobacco and nicotine, and once that happens, its legality is going to be severely restricted. And that restriction will not have the over-reach of Prohibition, which I grant was a disaster.
Legalization isn't so much either/or, but mediating between an individual freedom and social good, and tobacco is losing as an individual freedom. The data is fairly self-evident. Restaurant bans, building bans, so on. The cancers and other health problems, as well, are too much of a burden to over-ride your personal right to make yourself sick.
Yes it is a matter of personal liberty versus the public good. Since any damage is simply a problem for the individual, the commonality has no valid position in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Again, that's a blatant oversimplification. What is the commonality but the sum of all individuals? Maybe this definition is itself another oversimplification, but surely we can work out a synthesis? I most certainly approve the defense of personal liberties, yet your view of 'absolute freedom' still strikes me as very extreme and unconciliatory. Of course you don't have to compromise, but the truth is we must strive to find some sort of conciliation, or at least the establishment of common ground. Otherwise it's just pure antagonism, and that results in no progress after 100+ posts of discussion. Well, nevermind this rant.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
What I mean is, when I read your posts I get the impression that 'the commonality' is like an evil dictator whom it's the individuals' duty to defy. Whatever happened to Hobbes's 'Leviathan'? Or maybe you think that that definition of the 'common good' is obsolete?
Peter, Endon caught your error before I did, but look, if heroin was legally regulated, and I shot up, you're right, it is a personal liberty, as long as I'm not driving stoned, or using a dirty needle and getting HIV and then giving this lethal disease to a lover.
Tobacco, however, includes more than my personal autonomy, or Al's, or yours. It is a lethal carcinogen which can and does kill people other than the individual smoker, and the state does have a vested interest in equal protection. When I lit my hair by accident, had I not reacted as quickly as I did, I might have died and also damaged the building I lived in. Fires caused by cigarettes kill too.
This does not mean I am against your right to pursue happiness, or that I'd ban alcohol, or trans fat; there are differences over how far the state can push. But tobacco as a legally farmed product is on its way out in the United States, and in China, the disease costs of nearly unhindered cigarette use is tragic. The numbers I've read are astounding, and I am a smoker, but a smoker whose consequences are beginning to fetch.