Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[Shalot]

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.

I would agree here, but the reality is that a lot of smokers get food stamps and go to the grocery store and buy food with their food stamps and with their cash, they buy a carton of cigarettes. That's not propaganda or fear mongering - that's fact. I've seen it. The damage in these cases is not simply a problem for the individual, because the individual is using tax dollars to feed themselves but they are resourceful enough to come up with money to buy cigarettes. Then again, cigarettes are so addictive, that I can see it. As a former smoker, I know I would be doing the same thing if I were in their shoes and under the stress they're under.

These same people probably don't have health insurance if they qualify for the food stamp benefit, and their use of cigarettes just makes their health care needs go up. Their kids, if they have them, will have more ear infections and respiratory infections, and they will require trips to the MD, which their parents can't pay for. If they don't qualify for whatever health care assistance might be available through the state, they just go to the emergency room and there they receive treatment. Emergency room care is expensive and they can't pay for it, despite any collection activity the hospital might engage in, so the hospitals end up carrying these huge unpaid revenue balances on their financial statements. These hospitals find themselves in a cash shortage situation more often than not and have to seek government funding and grants. Where does that money come from?

Cigarettes don't just harm the individual and they're more detrimental then they are pleasureable. Cigarettes don't even make you feel good. They make you crazy when you need one and can't smoke one and then you feel better after you satisfy your craving, but the initial cigeratte buzz is so lame when you compare it to the coughing and craving and stink that you have to put up with long after cigerettes stop giving you that buzz. Cigarettes just kill you slowly and turn you into this stinking, coughing, burden to society.


However, if someone wants to smoke cigarettes and die, they should be free to do so as long as they're not trying to collect food stamps or going to the hospital expecting someone else to pick up the tab for their health problems. The problem is that a lot of these people who smoke don't have the resources to quit.

I'm not arguing that cigarettes should be illegal - I guess I'm just trying to show how use of cigarettes does become more of a social burden than an individual one in the U.S. Giving up the freedom to not pick up this nasty habit doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice given the damage cigarettes do in comparison to the lack of benefits they offer.

[PeterL]

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.

What error do you mean? Did I make a typo?

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.

Nicotine does not cause cancer. Nicotine can encourage the development of cancer in some people. Interestingly, the people who are most likely to get cancer are people who are least likely to become addicted to nicotine. The state does not have any responsibility for your health. That you managed to get some governmental entity to pay for your medical care was to your advantage, but that is no more a proper function of government thn it would be for you to expect me to pay for your medical care.

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.

My right to act is limited only when it impinges on an other person.

Tobacco is not dangerous when smoked in reasonable amounts by people who like it. Nicotine is the most powerful anti-depressant that is known. Some of the additives in cigarettes are of questionable safety, and some are deadly chemicals. If you want to profit from the nearly total ban on tobacco that will be imposed within the next few years in the U.S., then you should buy stock of companies that produced anti-depressants.

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.

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?

There is a huge difference between the "common good" and the good of each individual. The "common good" is that which is good for the people as a group; things that will be to the advantage of most of the people most of the time. That includes a good court system, good roads, effective police, etc. The "common good" does not include things that are thought by some to be good for each individual but that are not available for all people. Examples of things that are not for the "common good" would include national medical insurance, because that is advantageous only to people who are sickly, so healthy people are simply paying some bills for other people. I won't go on, but I think that you should get the idea. Remember that just because some guy with a government job says that something is good does not mean that that thing actually is good. He might just be saying whatever, because they pay him to say things like that. The term "common good" is not obsolete, but many people try to twist it to mean something other than what it does mean. Some people simply mean 'things that I like' when they say 'common good'.

Cigerettes don't just harm the individual and they're more detrimental then they are pleasureable. Cigerettes don't even make you feel good. They make you crazy when you need one and can't smoke one and then you feel better after you satisfy your craving, but the initial cigerette buzz is so lame when you compare it to the coughing and craving and stink that you have to put up with long after cigerettes stop giving you that buzz. Cigerettes just kill you slowly and turn you into this stinking, coughing, leach on society.

I suggest that you do some research on nicotine. It happens to be the strongest known anti-depressant.

However, if someone wants to smoke cigerettes and die, they should be free to do so as long as they're not trying to collect food stamps or going to the hospital expecting someone else to pick up the tab for their health problems. The problem is that a lot of these people who smoke don't have the resources to quit.

I agree. Medical care is also a personal matter, and no government should involved itself in that.

I'm not arguing that cigerettes should be illegal - I guess I'm just trying to show how use of cigerettes does become more of a social burden than an individual one in the U.S. Giving up the freedom to not pick up this nasty habit doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice given the damage cigerettes do in comparison to the lack of benefits they offer.

The use of cigarettes is not a "social burden". It is a completely personal matter, and no government should be involved. I feel as strongly against the intrusion of governments in medical care than I do about the right of people to smoke cigarettes, hemp, opium, or anything else that they might want to.

[Emil Miller]

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:

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.



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."

Obviously a democratically elected goverment is not likely to legislate agaisnt pre-marital sex but they often do determine by law the age at which it can legally take place. From your standpoint that is a violation of a child's rights but few people, with the possible exception of paedophiles, would agree with it.

As for banning homosexuality for the reasons you have given, the answer is yes, if an elected government thinks it necessary.


In relation to the problem of drug barrons, I meant that if illegal narcotics were to be phased out of society in the same way as tobacco and alcohol by increased pressure from an enlightened general populace. The drug barrons would largely lose their raison d'etre even though some recalcitrant members of the public would still be likely to use them.

I enjoy drinking, that's why I do it, but I would be the first to admit that it is not necessary and were the government stupid enough to try to ban it outright I would give it up, even though I disagreed with the ban, until, as in 1933 America, the law was repealed. On the other hand, having got used to being without it, I would probably stay off it and save myself a lot of money. As I said, it is not necessary to human existence, I know people who don't smoke or drink and they seem quite unstressed to me .The same applied when I gave up smoking.

It is interesting that, according to Wikipedia, 25 of the 55 founding fathers were lawyers and the they drew up the US Constitution from which a legal system was formed. It is this system that you are apparently at odds with in relation to narcotics and their control. You do have the right to protest to your elected representative and to join other like-minded people in trying to convince your compatriots that illegal drugs should be legalised. You may succeed but nothing that has been written on this thread so far has convinced me.

[Mr Endon]

Some people simply mean 'things that I like' when they say 'common good'.

Right, I got it now; the phrase I've emphasised encapsules where I believe the crux of the matter lies. Or at least why my opinion about drug legalisation has been so cloudy and unsteady. After all, I haven't been challenging your main argument at all (since I'm pro-legalisation as well), I'm only having problems with your justification of drugs, because you, unlike me, have no problems at all with drug use. And this is something entirely personal, almost like religion, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of legalisation of drugs.

'Life-affirming' actions are the key to my new philosophy, and drugs don't fit in my scheme. For me, drug use (and smoking, and drinking, and so on) is a kind of self-indulgence which in no way makes you a better/healthier/happier person (yes, I'm everything Thom Yorke hates, and of course I'm aware that I'm a hypocrite, not all that I do is 'life-affirming'). Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no drugs on earth. And yet I defend legalisation, and for two reasons:

1) like you've been mentioning, it's very dangerous to put the state above the individual;
2) criminalisation won't make the problem go away; in fact, it only aggravates matters.

For example, prostitution is a scourge in all societies, and it would be better if it didn't exist. But it can never be wiped out, it's virtually impossible, so we might as well make it tolerable for the prostitutes, who hardly ever choose the life they have. I think it's important to decriminalise it, so as to ensure decent life and work conditions, curb exploitation, stop making pimps rich, etc.

All this is in line with some of the things you've said. And also like you've said, history teaches, and indeed looking back never has prohibition of anything ever worked out for anyone.

So, I'm for legalisation of possession of all kinds of drugs. However, I also defend firm limitations to drug use, such as age restrictions and high taxation - pretty much what is being done to tobacco. Thus I find the balance between personal liberties and what you've termed 'nanny government'. This is the only respect where, as far as I can tell, our opinions diverge (legally speaking, of course), and I dare say the sole insurmountable barrier to full agreement.

[PeterL]

Right, I got it now; the phrase I've emphasised encapsules where I believe the crux of the matter lies. Or at least why my opinion about drug legalisation has been so cloudy and unsteady. After all, I haven't been challenging your main argument at all (since I'm pro-legalisation as well), I'm only having problems with your justification of drugs, because you, unlike me, have no problems at all with drug use. And this is something entirely personal, almost like religion, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of legalisation of drugs.

Fundamentally, all opinions are personal, and they are quite like religion. Most people believe their opinions because some authority has told them what to believe. Just as some people think that some religions should be restricted, because the tenets of that religion differ from their own religious beliefs, some people believe that other people should be restricted from taking drugs, because the authorities have said that such things should be restricted.

'Life-affirming' actions are the key to my new philosophy, and drugs don't fit in my scheme. For me, drug use (and smoking, and drinking, and so on) is a kind of self-indulgence which in no way makes you a better/healthier/happier person (yes, I'm everything Thom Yorke hates, and of course I'm aware that I'm a hypocrite, not all that I do is 'life-affirming'). Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no drugs on earth. And yet I defend legalisation, and for two reasons:

1) like you've been mentioning, it's very dangerous to put the state above the individual;
2) criminalisation won't make the problem go away; in fact, it only aggravates matters.

For example, prostitution is a scourge in all societies, and it would be better if it didn't exist. But it can never be wiped out, it's virtually impossible, so we might as well make it tolerable for the prostitutes, who hardly ever choose the life they have. I think it's important to decriminalise it, so as to ensure decent life and work conditions, curb exploitation, stop making pimps rich, etc.

All this is in line with some of the things you've said. And also like you've said, history teaches, and indeed looking back never has prohibition of anything ever worked out for anyone.

So, I'm for legalisation of possession of all kinds of drugs. However, I also defend firm limitations to drug use, such as age restrictions and high taxation - pretty much what is being done to tobacco. Thus I find the balance between personal liberties and what you've termed 'nanny government'. This is the only respect where, as far as I can tell, our opinions diverge (legally speaking, of course), and I dare say the sole insurmountable barrier to full agreement.

Fine

[Big Al]

Obviously a democratically elected goverment is not likely to legislate agaisnt pre-marital sex but they often do determine by law the age at which it can legally take place. From your standpoint that is a violation of a child's rights but few people, with the possible exception of paedophiles, would agree with it.

When we argue about the legalization of drugs, we aren't arguing about the rights of children; there are already laws in effect to keep children away from tobacco and alcohol, which are legal to those of age, and adults may legally have pre-marital relations but not use certain drugs. So looking at the analogy as it affects strictly adults rather than children, how can you justify one but not the other?

As for banning homosexuality for the reasons you have given, the answer is yes, if an elected government thinks it necessary.

If this answer doesn't cause you to lose all credibility, I don't know what would. We're talking about the legislation of prejudice, and you feel that it is justified if enough people accept it, or can at least make up phony, unsubstantiated reasons for why it should be illegal?

In relation to the problem of drug barrons, I meant that if illegal narcotics were to be phased out of society in the same way as tobacco and alcohol by increased pressure from an enlightened general populace. The drug barrons would largely lose their raison d'etre even though some recalcitrant members of the public would still be likely to use them.

Drug use has been steadily increasing for several decades, and it is currently on the rise.

I enjoy drinking, that's why I do it, but I would be the first to admit that it is not necessary and were the government stupid enough to try to ban it outright I would give it up, even though I disagreed with the ban, until, as in 1933 America, the law was repealed. On the other hand, having got used to being without it, I would probably stay off it and save myself a lot of money. As I said, it is not necessary to human existence, I know people who don't smoke or drink and they seem quite unstressed to me .The same applied when I gave up smoking.

Is that fact that you have met people who don't smoke or drink and who seemed "quite unstressed" supposed to rebut anything? Does your personal experience supersede all others?

It is interesting that, according to Wikipedia, 25 of the 55 founding fathers were lawyers and the they drew up the US Constitution from which a legal system was formed. It is this system that you are apparently at odds with in relation to narcotics and their control. You do have the right to protest to your elected representative and to join other like-minded people in trying to convince your compatriots that illegal drugs should be legalised. You may succeed but nothing that has been written on this thread so far has convinced me.

The current governmental system active in the United States is as far removed from that of the Founding Fathers as you can get. Much of the constitution has been disregarded, and the government has seized more power than was ever granted to it. The system I am at odds with is the one which has risen up in opposition to that proposed by the Founding Fathers; those who would ban alcohol and tobacco are actually the ones at odds with the Founding Fathers, as evidenced by the fact that many of them enjoyed and profited from alcohol and tobacco products. Either way, I do not consider the systems set up by the Founders to be perfect (Thomas Jefferson believed that the government and the constitution should be revised every so often to keep pace with changing times), and there are obvious flaws inherent in a democratic system. My point was to show that freedom can arise from disobeying law and order, and that not all laws are just, and believing otherwise is pure naivety.

By the way, I notice that you are from London, England. Are you a native of England, or a transplanted U.S. citizen? Because either way, you don't seem very well equipped to argue with me about American history (especially if you have to resort to looking up information on Wikipedia).

[Jozanny]

I rest my case .

As to the critique of modern government being too powerful, you really can't put the genie back in the bottle. Civilization may be more fragile than we like to believe, but you also need governments to be able to handle the demands of a 21st century, inclusive of infrastructure, trade, social policy, defense, health care, humane working conditions, oversight agencies, and all the rest. Personal liberty is never an absolute unto itself.

And to correct an error, nicotine is by no means an efficient anti-depressant. It is a very quick acting stimulant which wears off rapidly, which is why smokers get sick. They need to keep burning tobacco, or use other methods of rapid absorption, to maintain endorphin levels. Cocaine is much stronger.

[PeterL]

I rest my case .

As to the critique of modern government being too powerful, you really can't put the genie back in the bottle. Civilization may be more fragile than we like to believe, but you also need governments to be able to handle the demands of a 21st century, inclusive of infrastructure, trade, social policy, defense, health care, humane working conditions, oversight agencies, and all the rest. Personal liberty is never an absolute unto itself.

I disagree. Although the genie has been let out, it can be returned to the bottle, and it won't be all that difficult to do it; if I decide to put things back into proper order. No one needs government for social policy, and all governments that have tried to set social policy have made things much worse. No one needs government for health care or humane working conditions, because neither of those matters are functions of government.

And to correct an error, nicotine is by no means an efficient anti-depressant. It is a very quick acting stimulant which wears off rapidly, which is why smokers get sick. They need to keep burning tobacco, or use other methods of rapid absorption, to maintain endorphin levels. Cocaine is much stronger.

You should look into it. Nicotine is the most powerful anti-depressant known. One of the reason why it is so powerful is that it acts as a stimulant in the brain but it tends to relax muscles. People who become addicted to nicotine metabolize it quickly, but there are many people who do not metabolize it quickly, so they don't become addicted. Cocaine is some of the effects of nicotine, but it requires larger doses.

[Jozanny]

Being a published disability journalist who specializes in health, I have looked into it. Your feelings on the function of government are prosaic, to say the least, but I certainly need what it does for me so that I can stay integrated in the community. It can be a double edged sword, certainly, but that is why I'm a trained advocate.

[Nick Capozzoli]

What started as a simple question, "Should drugs be legalized?" has, inevitably, turned to a discussion about individual liberty and the constraints placed upon it by society in the form of government and laws. This has been the subject of libraries full of books written over the millenia of recorded history. I don't think any of us is going to yield any really new, startling, or decisive insights.

When humans started living together in roving and more stationary groups (first family bands, then multifamily cohorts, then tribes, then villages, cities, city states, and even bigger groups), there was a progressive subordination of individual will and liberty to group will. At some point in this process of individual subordination, formal laws developed, mostly in a "Thou shalt not" format. The earliest "Thou Shalt Not's" served mainly to prevent individual's from harming others. As things got more complicated, and groups competed with each other, the survival of the group, rather than just the individual, became paramount.

One way to look at this social evolution is to compare it to the biologic evolution of single celled to multicelled organisms. The multicelled organism consists of an assemblage of cells. With few exceptions, the cells that constitute these multicellular organisms cannot live independently. The organism "wants to" survive, and it is "willing" to sacrifice some of its cells to do so. Forgive the attribution of desire and will to the biological imperative, but it's justifiable.

I think it's pretty easy to extend this reasoning to all of our laws, but I don't want to do so here. Let me say that the more a society views its members as "cells" in the biological sense, the more society will demand that individual liberties be restricted, in the name of the enhanced "health" and "survivability" of society. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the Nazi's had some of the most restrictive "public health" and "hygeine" laws in human history. The Nazis criminalized "inappropriate matings," euthanized "mental defectives," and sought to ban smoking in the 1930's, well before the rest of the world got on that bandwagon. The reason for this was apparently that the Third Reich believed that the bodies of all good Germans belonged to Der Fuhrer, and good German's should not defile what did not really belong to them.

[Mr Endon]

That's a fascinating set up, Nick! The first three paragraphs are quite informative.
Yet I can't help but think that your last remark (that the nazis wanted cigarettes banned) is a very subtle reductio ad hitlerum. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Are you implying something bombastic about vegetarianism?
Of course that your comparison does do some work, but I'd be careful to tread the grounds of demagogy.
That said, I think it's a valid perspective, but I wonder what you think of a society that allows the marketing of tobacco, drugs, alcohol et al, but restricts its use. Would you still contend it's tied to an eugenic agenda? Even if it is, aren't personal liberties assured?

[Nick Capozzoli]

Yet I can't help but think that your last remark (that the nazis wanted cigarettes banned) is a very subtle reductio ad hitlerum. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Are you implying something bombastic about vegetarianism?
... I'd be careful to tread the grounds of demagogy.
That said, I think it's a valid perspective, but I wonder what you think of a society that allows the marketing of tobacco, drugs, alcohol et al, but restricts its use. Would you still contend it's tied to an eugenic agenda? Even if it is, aren't personal liberties assured?

[I][B]Re[B][I] vegetarianism...I didn't say anything about that and didn't mean to imply anything. However, humans cannot get all their essential nutrients from a purely vegan diet. Vitamin B12 is not present in any plant foods, and needed to be supplemented. If not, the vegan will develop pernicious anemia and neurological problems.

As regards tobacco, alcohol, etc. marketing, these are allowed for various reasons: free market individual capitalism is a big reason. Even in capitalist economies, the State may get money from taxing these markets, and in non-capitalist economies the State may realize,a profit from the selling of tobacco, EtOH, and even heroin and cocaine.... Italy runs a tobacco company called "MS" (monopolio dello stato---literally "State Monopoly."

The Obama Administration is looking into creative ways to finance socialized medicine, and these ways include "sin taxes" on things like tobacco and booze...and I'm sure they;ll come up with taxes on ice cream, Big Macs, and other foods that the FDA finds "unhealthy."

[Mr Endon]

What I meant was that the reduction ad hitlerum is basically the following: Hitler was evil, Hitler did X, therefore X is evil. It's like saying, Hitler was vegetarian (which he was), therefore there must be something twisted about vegetarianism. The same with smoking. By siding Hitler with smoking ban you're basically saying: "smoking ban? Well the last one to try that was Hitler, and we all know how that ended up".
But nevermind this, this is peripheral.

I don't wish to tread on Obama ground (you're relatively new and may not know that this forum doesn't allow discussion of current politics). I'll just ask this again: are liberties undermined if the products are readily accessible yet taxed? You can still gorge on Big Macs if you want, but I don't see why we shouldn't fund roads and healthcare and education with drugs and booze and fastfood. Call me a moralist, but at least this is a plausible compromise between the group's urge to protect the individual and the individual's urge to do whatever he likes.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Ok, this is something I feel strongly about. My answer is a straight NO. Drugs should not be legalised. I have seen friends from school take the plunge, and some of them are no longer with us. Enough said.

/Claes

[The Atheist]

Ok, this is something I feel strongly about. My answer is a straight NO. Drugs should not be legalised. I have seen friends from school take the plunge, and some of them are no longer with us. Enough said.

/Claes

That's an understandable, but knee-jerk reaction.

I'm guessing they died through using illegal drugs, so it's hardly evidence that drugs being illegal will help others.

The evidence of Prohibition, plus all other kinds of prohibition, indicates that less harm is done by legalisation.

Legalisation allows better control of addiction, which is always a good thing.