More On Drugs
Final Drug War Thoughts, in response to A Fan For All Seasons.
"I support drug legalization because I do care about people, I care about people’s freedom to make choices for themselves"
That means you support murder, theft, rape, and basically any sort of deviant behavior, just so you know.
I care about people's freedom to make choices for themselves that don't infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others. In criminal law there is a distinction made between crimes that are malum in se and malum prohibita. Malum in se crimes are crimes that are bad in and of themselves, crimes that all societies punish- crimes such as rape, murder, and theft. Crimes that are malum prohibita are bad because we make laws that say they are bad- drug crimes today would be an example- or adultery, dancing, and failing to go to Church along with anything else that could be punished by law in the Puritan America of the 17th century.
The point is, some things are just bad, whereas other things- like drugs- are bad because our society says they are bad.
Black markets aren't just for illegal materials; they are for hard to acquire materials. Guns are legal, but there are black markets for guns. Prescription drugs are legal, but they have a black market as well. Organized crime will not die out with legalization of drugs. Do you honestly think giant drug cartels will just say "well, the jig is up, let's go get real jobs". No way.
Eventually, drug cartels will have to say the jig is up because they will not be able to charge competitive prices for the drugs they are selling. The market will dictate that they stop selling drugs. Additionally, you mention prescription drugs and guns- there is a black market for these products because they are highly regulated. People turn to the black market when they can't get the items they want legally (or perhaps because going the legal route involves more hurdles than they are willing to put up with). Again, black markets are caused by laws that restrict the market- the freer the market is, the less of a need there is for a black market, and the influence of organized crime is lessened.
Also, for the 100th time, alcohol is nothing like cocaine, crack, crystal meth or any other hard line drug. Those drugs are highly addictive. There are much easier to binge on and their effects are much, much worse. Alcohol is not addictive. If your body can't handle alcohol, you merely throw it up and that should be warning enough to stop. If your body can't handle a line of coke or a dose of heroin, you could die.
I think the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans who are currently in, or who have ever participated in Alcoholics Anonymous would tend to disagree with your statement that alcohol is not addictive. As a college student you should know how easy alcohol is to binge on, and the numerous problems that can result from alcohol abuse. Many of the problems you refer to with coke and heroin I believe generally result from "impure" versions of the drugs sold on the streets- a problem that would be far less common if there was a legal market. For the exceedingly small number of people who might die from using a drug, keep in mind that we approve pharmaceuticals all the time that could potentially cause death. Again, the point is the individual's freedom of choice.
This isn't merely about making "bad choices". A bad choice is watching a basketball game instead of hanging out with your girlfriend. If you truly care about someone, about people, you wouldn't want them to do drugs like cocaine in the first place. Stop comparing alcohol to cocaine. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You can die from driving, I'm not saying ban driving. You can die from alcohol use, although it's very difficult, but I'm not saying ban alcohol. These drugs are illegal for a reason. Don't believe me? Go spend a night in a crack den.
I don't want people to abuse any drugs, be it alcohol, cocaine, or whatever. There's not a drug on the planet that is addictive from one use. Nicotine is supposed to be one of the most addictive drugs there is, perhaps the most addictive drug, yet I know from personal experience that you can smoke countless cigarettes without becoming addicted. Yes, most people who start smoking to become smokers, but you can find plenty of people who have smoked before who are not nicotine addicts. What does this all mean? Drug use, and addiction itself is a very personal sort of issue.
Whereas Person A may smoke 500 cigarettes and never become addicted, Person B may smoke 100 cigarettes and be hooked for life. There is no magic number. Additionally, lets say Person A and Person B each smoke 500 cigarettes, but person A smokes those cigarettes over a couple months and person B smokes those cigarettes over a couple of years. Their personal choices as to how often to smoke may play a role in whether they become addicted. Apply the same logic to cocaine, marijuana, or any illegal drug.
You say spend a night in a crack den, but I say spend a night at a New York City party where high priced attorneys and Wall Street types are doing lines of coke. If you didn't see them do it, you'd probably be hard pressed to point them out as drug users.
I'm not arguing that all drugs pose the same risks- quite the contrary. I recognize that all drugs have risks, and that those risks are different to different people. Additionally, I would argue that people don't develop drug problems because of drugs- people develop drug problems because of other problems in their life or other issues they may have. I think blaming drugs is a crutch for ignoring real problems. Yes there is such a thing as physical addiction (particularly when it comes to heroin), but I would argue that people don't get that far without any number of other problems in their lives. And finally I would make the points that 1- not all drug use is abuse, and 2- depending on the person, drug abuse can range from completely destructive to a minor personal problem. It is well researched that there are plenty of functional addicts in the world, people completely addicted to drugs, but able to function in their everyday lives. This is drug abuse for some people, and maybe for others it means living on the streets.
I don't engage in this debate to moralize on drugs. I think people's moral decisions, along with their decisions about risk should not be made by the government. I don't think we should legislate against a certain item because some people may have a problem with that item. And finally, I don't believe it's the place of government to draw lines as to what risks are appropriate- like alcohol, and what risks are not appropriate- like marijuana or cocaine.
You continually avoid my points about risk and personal responsibility and decision making to point out that "these drugs are dangerous!" I'm not disagreeing with you there. My point is, we shouldn't cede to government the responsibility to make these choices for us. It's that sort of attitude that leads to other laws passed to protect people that violate the individual right to make choices. It seems as though you don't want alcohol banned, but imagine we lived back in the 20's during prohibition. Your argument would be that alcohol prohibition is a bad policy choice, but so long as a majority of people disagreed with you, there would be nothing you could do. My argument would be that the government should have no right to ban alcohol in the first place, because the majority should not be able to impose its views on what's safe, and what's a good idea on the rest of the population. Think about it.
"I support drug legalization because I do care about people, I care about people’s freedom to make choices for themselves"
That means you support murder, theft, rape, and basically any sort of deviant behavior, just so you know.
I care about people's freedom to make choices for themselves that don't infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others. In criminal law there is a distinction made between crimes that are malum in se and malum prohibita. Malum in se crimes are crimes that are bad in and of themselves, crimes that all societies punish- crimes such as rape, murder, and theft. Crimes that are malum prohibita are bad because we make laws that say they are bad- drug crimes today would be an example- or adultery, dancing, and failing to go to Church along with anything else that could be punished by law in the Puritan America of the 17th century.
The point is, some things are just bad, whereas other things- like drugs- are bad because our society says they are bad.
Black markets aren't just for illegal materials; they are for hard to acquire materials. Guns are legal, but there are black markets for guns. Prescription drugs are legal, but they have a black market as well. Organized crime will not die out with legalization of drugs. Do you honestly think giant drug cartels will just say "well, the jig is up, let's go get real jobs". No way.
Eventually, drug cartels will have to say the jig is up because they will not be able to charge competitive prices for the drugs they are selling. The market will dictate that they stop selling drugs. Additionally, you mention prescription drugs and guns- there is a black market for these products because they are highly regulated. People turn to the black market when they can't get the items they want legally (or perhaps because going the legal route involves more hurdles than they are willing to put up with). Again, black markets are caused by laws that restrict the market- the freer the market is, the less of a need there is for a black market, and the influence of organized crime is lessened.
Also, for the 100th time, alcohol is nothing like cocaine, crack, crystal meth or any other hard line drug. Those drugs are highly addictive. There are much easier to binge on and their effects are much, much worse. Alcohol is not addictive. If your body can't handle alcohol, you merely throw it up and that should be warning enough to stop. If your body can't handle a line of coke or a dose of heroin, you could die.
I think the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans who are currently in, or who have ever participated in Alcoholics Anonymous would tend to disagree with your statement that alcohol is not addictive. As a college student you should know how easy alcohol is to binge on, and the numerous problems that can result from alcohol abuse. Many of the problems you refer to with coke and heroin I believe generally result from "impure" versions of the drugs sold on the streets- a problem that would be far less common if there was a legal market. For the exceedingly small number of people who might die from using a drug, keep in mind that we approve pharmaceuticals all the time that could potentially cause death. Again, the point is the individual's freedom of choice.
This isn't merely about making "bad choices". A bad choice is watching a basketball game instead of hanging out with your girlfriend. If you truly care about someone, about people, you wouldn't want them to do drugs like cocaine in the first place. Stop comparing alcohol to cocaine. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You can die from driving, I'm not saying ban driving. You can die from alcohol use, although it's very difficult, but I'm not saying ban alcohol. These drugs are illegal for a reason. Don't believe me? Go spend a night in a crack den.
I don't want people to abuse any drugs, be it alcohol, cocaine, or whatever. There's not a drug on the planet that is addictive from one use. Nicotine is supposed to be one of the most addictive drugs there is, perhaps the most addictive drug, yet I know from personal experience that you can smoke countless cigarettes without becoming addicted. Yes, most people who start smoking to become smokers, but you can find plenty of people who have smoked before who are not nicotine addicts. What does this all mean? Drug use, and addiction itself is a very personal sort of issue.
Whereas Person A may smoke 500 cigarettes and never become addicted, Person B may smoke 100 cigarettes and be hooked for life. There is no magic number. Additionally, lets say Person A and Person B each smoke 500 cigarettes, but person A smokes those cigarettes over a couple months and person B smokes those cigarettes over a couple of years. Their personal choices as to how often to smoke may play a role in whether they become addicted. Apply the same logic to cocaine, marijuana, or any illegal drug.
You say spend a night in a crack den, but I say spend a night at a New York City party where high priced attorneys and Wall Street types are doing lines of coke. If you didn't see them do it, you'd probably be hard pressed to point them out as drug users.
I'm not arguing that all drugs pose the same risks- quite the contrary. I recognize that all drugs have risks, and that those risks are different to different people. Additionally, I would argue that people don't develop drug problems because of drugs- people develop drug problems because of other problems in their life or other issues they may have. I think blaming drugs is a crutch for ignoring real problems. Yes there is such a thing as physical addiction (particularly when it comes to heroin), but I would argue that people don't get that far without any number of other problems in their lives. And finally I would make the points that 1- not all drug use is abuse, and 2- depending on the person, drug abuse can range from completely destructive to a minor personal problem. It is well researched that there are plenty of functional addicts in the world, people completely addicted to drugs, but able to function in their everyday lives. This is drug abuse for some people, and maybe for others it means living on the streets.
I don't engage in this debate to moralize on drugs. I think people's moral decisions, along with their decisions about risk should not be made by the government. I don't think we should legislate against a certain item because some people may have a problem with that item. And finally, I don't believe it's the place of government to draw lines as to what risks are appropriate- like alcohol, and what risks are not appropriate- like marijuana or cocaine.
You continually avoid my points about risk and personal responsibility and decision making to point out that "these drugs are dangerous!" I'm not disagreeing with you there. My point is, we shouldn't cede to government the responsibility to make these choices for us. It's that sort of attitude that leads to other laws passed to protect people that violate the individual right to make choices. It seems as though you don't want alcohol banned, but imagine we lived back in the 20's during prohibition. Your argument would be that alcohol prohibition is a bad policy choice, but so long as a majority of people disagreed with you, there would be nothing you could do. My argument would be that the government should have no right to ban alcohol in the first place, because the majority should not be able to impose its views on what's safe, and what's a good idea on the rest of the population. Think about it.
posted by lonely libertarian at 7:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home