Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[Big Al]

You would probbaly lose them. Like all of his acolytes, Mill talks a lot about rights but seldom mentions responsibilty.

Mill writes extensively about responsibility, both in the final section of "On Liberty" and in another famous philosophical discourse of his entitled "Utilitarianism." It is Mill's assertion -- and my own -- that, in a free society, the government can only restrict the actions of an individual on if they infringe on the freedoms of another, each individual being responsible for his own behavior. If a person's action do not oppress or do harm to another, then on no logical grounds does the government have either the right or the responsibility to restrict his freedoms. However, in such a case where an individual's action does cause harm to a fellow human being, Mill affirmed the absolute responsibility of the government to step in and take direct action against him.

[Emil Miller]

Mill writes extensively about responsibility, both in the final section of "On Liberty" and in another famous philosophical discourse of his entitled "Utilitarianism." It is Mill's assertion -- and my own -- that, in a free society, the government can only restrict the actions of an individual on if they infringe on the freedoms of another, each individual being responsible for his own behavior. If a person's action do not oppress or do harm to another, then on no logical grounds does the government have either the right or the responsibility to restrict his freedoms. However, in such a case where an individual's action does cause harm to a fellow human being, Mill affirmed the absolute responsibility of the government to step in and take direct action against him.

Mill is only saying what any sensible person knows instinctively i.e. that individual freedom has its parameters. What those parameters should be obviously cannot be determined by the individual without them being called into question. Hence, the necessity for a legal framework to decide what they are.

[Big Al]

Mill is only saying what any sensible person knows instinctively i.e. that individual freedom has its parameters. What those parameters should be obviously cannot be determined by the individual without them being called into question. Hence, the necessity for a legal framework to decide what they are.

Certainly individual freedom has its parameters, and those parameters are the freedoms of others. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and so long as a man does not threaten the liberty of his compatriot, he should be free to do so in every instance; there can logically be no other limits in a free state.

It is a fine line which the governmening body must walk to craft and enact legislation, because every law must have two fundamental goals: to honor the beliefs of the majority (or those beliefs which either benefit or ensure the safety of the general populace), but to do so only insofar as the law does not infringe on the rights of the individual. When governments disregard the second goal, when they ignore the voice of the minority or disregard the right of the individual to do as he likes so long as he does no harm to his neighbor, the legal framework creates a state of oppression and injustice which has rationalized persecution, slavery, segregation and genocide, all because they were in accord with the will of the majority.

[Emil Miller]

Certainly individual freedom has its parameters, and those parameters are the freedoms of others. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and so long as a man does not threaten the liberty of his compatriot, he should be free to do so in every instance; there can logically be no other limits in a free state.

It is a fine line which the governmening body must walk to craft and enact legislation, because every law must have two fundamental goals: to honor the beliefs of the majority (or those beliefs which either benefit or ensure the safety of the general populace), but to do so only insofar as the law does not infringe on the rights of the individual. When governments disregard the second goal, when they ignore the voice of the minority or disregard the right of the individual to do as he likes so long as he does no harm to his neighbor, the legal framework creates a state of oppression and injustice which has rationalized persecution, slavery, segregation and genocide, all because they were in accord with the will of the majority.

Because the pursuit of happiness will often be carrried out at the expense of others, we have laws deigned to prevent such an occurence. Those laws are passed by the legislature in accordance with the will of the majority rather than the individual because it would be wrong to allow a minority to impose its will on the majority. The fine line that you mention between between honoring the rights of the majority and the individual is decided by the government and the courts who are the only bodies who have a legal right to make that decision, whether we agree with it or not.

[sprinks]

That's what one would think. However, practical instances show that such speculations are ultimately foundationless. I suggest you to read the excellent article that Taliesin posted here, the Portuguese case study, where all drug use has been legalised for 8 years now and there are not yet any aggravations of any kind to speak of, in fact apparently only improvements: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...l?iid=tsmodule

Just because it happened like that in that country doesn't mean it will in all. Cultures are different, and will take to the matter different. Subcultures within those cultures too will take to it differently. I accept that perhaps in some places it could end up with improvements, but I still don't think that should allow the legalisation of drugs, because it certainly would not be positive for every person in every country.

[Big Al]

Because the pursuit of happiness will often be carrried out at the expense of others, we have laws deigned to prevent such an occurence.

Yes, that is correct, and is, in fact, exactly what I have been saying in every post. And when happiness is pursued at the expense of nobody but the individual pursuing it, why is it the government's concern? Why is it your concern?

Those laws are passed by the legislature in accordance with the will of the majority rather than the individual because it would be wrong to allow a minority to impose its will on the majority.

In the United States until the 1960s, laws were passed which discriminated against blacks and kept them segregated into poverty and squalor. Was this right? After all, it was the will of the majority at the time. Would the government allowing blacks equal treatment under the law have been an example of the "minoirty imposing its will on the majority?"

Instances like these are why a fair government in an egalitarian state absolutely cannot simply listen to the majority and ignore the minority, because it leads to minorities being discriminated against by the very law of the land. This is why governing bodies must realize that they can enact legislation only insofar as they do not infringe on the freedom of the individual. I fail to see how protecting minorities from majority prejudices and allowing them the basic freedom to do whatever they want in life as long as their actions do not harm others amounts to minorities oppressing majorities.

The fine line that you mention between between honoring the rights of the majority and the individual is decided by the government and the courts who are the only bodies who have a legal right to make that decision, whether we agree with it or not.

I am not arguing about the way things are; if that were the case, we would all be debating whether or not drugs are legal, an argument which really wouldn't last very long, for obvious reasons. I am arguing for the way things should be, ideally and necessarily, in a free nation, and just as we would never condone slavery or segregation -- actions of the government -- we cannot condone the idea of the government controlling our lives at the expense of personal liberty. If we do not agree with it, there are always alternative courses we can take; no human being ever has to sit back in complacency and say, "The government has robbed me of my freedom, but such is my lot in life."

Now explain this to me: explain to me why, if I do so without harming you or anybody else, I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana? Why do you feel the need for the government to control behaviors you dislike whether or not they infringe on the lives of others?

[Mr Endon]

Just because it happened like that in that country doesn't mean it will in all. Cultures are different, and will take to the matter different. Subcultures within those cultures too will take to it differently. I accept that perhaps in some places it could end up with improvements, but I still don't think that should allow the legalisation of drugs, because it certainly would not be positive for every person in every country.

Absolutely, I agree, cultures differ greatly. But let's face it, no one solution can 'be positive for every person in every country'. It's definitely a case by case situation, and you'd me an injustice if you inferred from my statements that I'm suggesting a wholesale worldwide legalisation. What I am suggesting is,

1) just because [blank] seems the logical result doesn't mean that's how it'll necessarily turn out in real life. Here's a quote from the article:

At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.

2), and following from 1), it would be very foolish to turn a blind eye on the cases of Portugal and the Netherlands, the only two countries that I know of that do not criminalise drugs and none of which has had any problems because of it.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, that is correct, and is, in fact, exactly what I have been saying in every post. And when happiness is pursued at the expense of nobody but the individual pursuing it, why is it the government's concern? Why is it your concern?



In the United States until the 1960s, laws were passed which discriminated against blacks and kept them segregated into poverty and squalor. Was this right? After all, it was the will of the majority at the time. Would the government allowing blacks equal treatment under the law have been an example of the "minoirty imposing its will on the majority?"

Instances like these are why a fair government in an egalitarian state absolutely cannot simply listen to the majority and ignore the minority, because it leads to minorities being discriminated against by the very law of the land. This is why governing bodies must realize that they can enact legislation only insofar as they do not infringe on the freedom of the individual. I fail to see how protecting minorities from majority prejudices and allowing them the basic freedom to do whatever they want in life as long as their actions do not harm others amounts to minorities oppressing majorities.



I am not arguing about the way things are; if that were the case, we would all be debating whether or not drugs are legal, an argument which really wouldn't last very long, for obvious reasons. I am arguing for the way things should be, ideally and necessarily, in a free nation, and just as we would never condone slavery or segregation -- actions of the government -- we cannot condone the idea of the government controlling our lives at the expense of personal liberty. If we do not agree with it, there are always alternative courses we can take; no human being ever has to sit back in complacency and say, "The government has robbed me of my freedom, but such is my lot in life."

Now explain this to me: explain to me why, if I do so without harming you or anybody else, I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana? Why do you feel the need for the government to control behaviors you dislike whether or not they infringe on the lives of others?

The fact that you might wish to take drugs at nobody elses expense doesn't mean that others will act accordingly. In this country there have been a number of accidents caused by people driving while smoking marijuana and also killings by drug users due their being drugged at the time. The government has to take an overview of the problem and acting on advice from the medical authorities (BMA), prohibits the unnecessary use of drugs per se. It is also a personal concern because I don't want to attacked or injured in an auto accident because some people happen to feel that their personal freedom is being compromised by the government.
As for slavery and segregation, it was governments that legislated to bring them to an end.

The below link is reason enough to keep drugs illegal even though it will never be completely enforced.



http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/27/wo...e-bizarre.html

[Big Al]

The fact that you might wish to take drugs at nobody elses expense doesn't mean that others will act accordingly. In this country there have been a number of accidents caused by people driving while smoking marijuana and also killings by drug users due their being drugged at the time. The government has to take an overview of the problem and acting on advice from the medical authorities (BMA), prohibits the unnecessary use of drugs per se. It is also a personal concern because I don't want to attacked or injured in an auto accident because some people happen to feel that their personal freedom is being compromised by the government.

I am reminded of a passage from "On Liberty":

The Secretary, however, says, 'I claim, as a citizen, the right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.' And now for the definition of these 'social rights'. 'If anything invades my social rights, certainly the traffic in strong drink does. It destroys my primary right of security, by constantly creating and stimulating social disorder. It invades my right of equality, by deriving a profit from the creation of a misery I am taxed to support. It impedes my right to free moral and intellectual development, by surrounding my path with dangers, and by weakening and demoralizing society, from which I have a right to claim mutual aid and intercourse.' A theory of 'social rights', the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language: being nothing short of this - that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whoseoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of my grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever...The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

If the government enacted drug legislation simply because of safety, then alcohol should not be legalized. After all, more people die in alcohol-related car crashes per year than marijuana or any illicit drug. Do you ever enjoy a drink, Brian Bean, or at the very least imagine a situation where a man may drink alcohol in moderation without commiting heinous crimes or smashing his car into an unsuspecting pedestrian? Do these instances represent the majority of alcohol drinkers, or a simple few? Is it fair to the majority to punish them because of the transgressions of the minority? Wouldn't that be an example of the government allowing the minority to indirectly oppress the majority, to take away the rights of the majority because a few are unable to handle the responsibility of freedom?

You cannot, I repeat, cannot restrict liberty in a free state based on the possibility that people may infringe on one another's liberty, because this amounts to punishing everybody for the transgressions of the few. The same applies to drugs, to guns, to anything; "he who would sacrifice his freedom for a little safety deserves neither freedom nor safety," and it is the complete antithesis of a free government which attempts to control behaviors which might, but are not necessarily or inherently, be harmful to others. After all, where do you draw the line? You are worried about being injured by a driver under the influence of drugs? I am constantly worried about being injured by any driver who may be sleepy, who may not be paying attention, or who may simply lose control of his vehicle for some reason or another. Therefore I say that cars are simply to great a danger for citizens to be allowed to own and drive them. And in case your counter-argument to this analogy is that drugs offer not benefit to society, then allow me to take preemptive action and disagree.

First, drugs have been shown to be enormously beneficial in numerous medical treatments from glaucoma to cancer, and they are an effective pain reliever. Second, the legalization of drugs would actually contribute to a safer, more ordered state with far less crime, as explained in an issue of "The Pragmatist":

As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel notes ("Heroin: The Shocking Story," April 1988), estimates vary widely for the proportion of violent and property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint figure. In an October 1987 survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs responding "blamed drugs for a fifth of the murders and rapes, a quarter car thefts, two-fifths of robberies and assaults and half the nation's burglaries and thefts."

The theoretical and statistical links between drugs and crime are well established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.

The reasons are not difficult to understand. When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." There are no statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged thanks to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine.

For heroin the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a five-hundredfold jump.

The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:

Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.
Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. And drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of Rite Aid pharmacies shoot it out with Thrift Drugs for a corner storefront?

When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. As one letter-writer to the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, "law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary."

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/12reason.htm

The legalization of drugs would also help formally end organized corruption, would cripple the mafia and other organized crime syndicates, it would help control the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases spread through unclean needles, it would help end prison overcrowding and unclog the courts, and it would free up billions and billions of dollars of public funds, a small fraciton of which could be used to fund free or inexpensive drug treatments for addicted users which have been shown to be exponentially more effective than prison sentences or conventional punishments.

As for slavery and segregation, it was governments that legislated to bring them to an end.

Only after they became worn down by the tireless efforts of civil rights activists, minorities whose rights had been trampled on by the majority and by the government for hundreds of years prior.

[PeterL]

The legalization of drugs would also help formally end organized corruption, would cripple the mafia and other organized crime syndicates, it would help control the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases spread through unclean needles, it would help end prison overcrowding and unclog the courts, and it would free up billions and billions of dollars of public funds, a small fraciton of which could be used to fund free or inexpensive drug treatments for addicted users which have been shown to be exponentially more effective than prison sentences or conventional punishments.

This economic rationale for legalizing drugs is, along with the tax revenues and decreased costs for police, corts, and prisons, the strongest argument. After what happened around alcohol during prohibition, one would have thought that the lesson had been learned, but it didn't sink in. Nearly all of the crime related to drugs is caused by the legal ban, rather than to the use.

The fact that you might wish to take drugs at nobody elses expense doesn't mean that others will act accordingly. In this country there have been a number of accidents caused by people driving while smoking marijuana and also killings by drug users due their being drugged at the time. The government has to take an overview of the problem and acting on advice from the medical authorities (BMA), prohibits the unnecessary use of drugs per se. It is also a personal concern because I don't want to attacked or injured in an auto accident because some people happen to feel that their personal freedom is being compromised by the government.

The harm done by people using illegal drugs in the course of their intoxication is negligible, a small faction of the rate for people using alcohol or who are not intoxicated. If you worry about that, then you should also take precautions against meteors.

[Emil Miller]

I am reminded of a passage from "On Liberty":


If the government enacted drug legislation simply because of safety, then alcohol should not be legalized. After all, more people die in alcohol-related car crashes per year than marijuana or any illicit drug. Do you ever enjoy a drink, Brian Bean, or at the very least imagine a situation where a man may drink alcohol in moderation without commiting heinous crimes or smashing his car into an unsuspecting pedestrian? Do these instances represent the majority of alcohol drinkers, or a simple few? Is it fair to the majority to punish them because of the transgressions of the minority? Wouldn't that be an example of the government allowing the minority to indirectly oppress the majority, to take away the rights of the majority because a few are unable to handle the responsibility of freedom?

You cannot, I repeat, cannot restrict liberty in a free state based on the possibility that people may infringe on one another's liberty, because this amounts to punishing everybody for the transgressions of the few. The same applies to drugs, to guns, to anything; "he who would sacrifice his freedom for a little safety deserves neither freedom nor safety," and it is the complete antithesis of a free government which attempts to control behaviors which might, but are not necessarily or inherently, be harmful to others. After all, where do you draw the line? You are worried about being injured by a driver under the influence of drugs? I am constantly worried about being injured by any driver who may be sleepy, who may not be paying attention, or who may simply lose control of his vehicle for some reason or another. Therefore I say that cars are simply to great a danger for citizens to be allowed to own and drive them. And in case your counter-argument to this analogy is that drugs offer not benefit to society, then allow me to take preemptive action and disagree.

First, drugs have been shown to be enormously beneficial in numerous medical treatments from glaucoma to cancer, and they are an effective pain reliever. Second, the legalization of drugs would actually contribute to a safer, more ordered state with far less crime, as explained in an issue of "The Pragmatist":


The legalization of drugs would also help formally end organized corruption, would cripple the mafia and other organized crime syndicates, it would help control the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases spread through unclean needles, it would help end prison overcrowding and unclog the courts, and it would free up billions and billions of dollars of public funds, a small fraciton of which could be used to fund free or inexpensive drug treatments for addicted users which have been shown to be exponentially more effective than prison sentences or conventional punishments.

Only after they became worn down by the tireless efforts of civil rights activists, minorities whose rights had been trampled on by the majority and by the government for hundreds of years prior.

I could give chapter and verse to your arguments but it would be to no avail. You are obviously a libertine and I am obviously a conservative. {edit}I repeat, the law is the law by democratic acceptance and that really is it until you and your cohorts are able to change it by pleading your cause.

[Big Al]

I could give chapter and verse to your arguments but it would be to no avail. You are obviously a libertine and I am obviously a conservative. {edit}I repeat, the law is the law by democratic acceptance and that really is it until you and your cohorts are able to change it by pleading your cause.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

The law is neither just nor fair because it is a law or because it is supported by the majority. Luckily there are plenty of "anarchists," such as Martin Luther King, who with his "cohorts" plead his cause and revealed to the world what oppression a democratic government could be capable of. Or perhaps you are in support of segregation? No matter either way as the government will eventually take the just path, right? Even if it takes a few hundred years.

But I suppose you could give "chapter and verse" explaining to me why every law enacted throughout history has, in fact, been just and worthy of unquestioning obedience. Some people simply cannot bow out of a debate with dignity and grace...

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be deleted without any further notice

and

lead to thread closure.

[Emil Miller]

The harm done by people using illegal drugs in the course of their intoxication is negligible, a small faction of the rate for people using alcohol or who are not intoxicated. If you worry about that, then you should also take precautions against meteors.

Exactly, and that is why I support laws designed to keep it that way.

Oh, and incidentally, the scientific community are doing quite a lot of work on trying to prevent meteors from striking earth.

[PeterL]

Exactly, and that is why I support laws designed to keep it that way.

Oh, and incidentally, the scientific community are doing quite a lot of work on trying to prevent meteors from striking earth.

OK, I was not aware that there were laws that encouraged people to get drunk and cause automobile accidents.

The scientific community is looking for ways to detect large asteroids that might cause widespread damage. While considerable progress has made in detection, the plans for doing something about stopping them from doing great damage has not moved. I was referring not to the mountains but to the micrometeors.