Illegal drugs

[pjkeeley]

Thank you all for engaging me on a subject I feel strongly about. For every horror story from those touched by the consequences of drug abuse, there must surely be 10 stories of people being made to feel like criminals and deviants as a result of the choices they should have the right to make.

I am also interested by the number of people here (pretty much everyone) who have been quick to qualify their opinions with a personal aside. It shouldn't matter, yet people assume the only people who would argue for more liberal drug policies must be drug users themselves, or must be 'pro-drugs'. This is a bit like saying some who supports a woman's right to choose is 'pro-abortion' or encourages women to have abortions. Defending a liberal drug position does not amount to endorsing drugs or encouraging people to use drugs. These are obviously absurd prejudices. In any case, whether or not you use drugs or whether or not you know anyone who uses them should be irrelevent in what is essentially a debate about policy.

Now to respond:

when you talk about legalizing drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin, I think you are going too far.

Illegal drugs can cause paranoia, delusions and psychosis. This puts the safety of friends and family at risk. In addition, they can lead to death through either overdose or suicide. The rights of the user have to be balanced against the safety of family and friends.

Obviously, drugs can and do put other people at risk. However, it should not be assumed that they will. In a democratic society we are obliged to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. Unless somebody has indeed harmed somebody else, they have committed no crime.

In fact, only a few drugs, and then, only in abnormal doses (and even then, sometimes only in certain people) will cause 'paranoia, delusions and psychosis'. If someone has a family history of psychosis or mental illness, they should not use drugs and should be educated on the risks. Interesting you mention paranoia; often paranoia is the result of the fact that:
A) People are doing something that society has made illegal,
B) They are made to feel like criminals and deviants for doing this,
C) They risk imprisonment for their actions,
D) Anti-drug propaganda provides exagerrated and erroneous accounts of drug effects, culminating with the above to cause unnecessary anxieties which can snowball into a bad trip.

So this seems more of an argument for making drugs legal than for keeping them illegal! Also, very few drugs cause actual delusions (ie. that completely seperate people's minds from reality). Drugs classified as 'deleriants' such as Datura (Jimson Weed) are known to cause this, however, these drugs are very unpopular because they have no positive effects. Even on LSD, considered the most potent hallucinogen, people are capable of recognising the difference between reality and hallucination.

I have seen plenty of lives destroyed by illegal drugs. I have also seen lives destroyed by legal ones (cigarettes and alcohol), but I do not think that legalizing more drugs will improve society in any measurable way.

Well, I believe legalising them will improve society, and in 'measurable' ways, which I will illustrate now. First, as Mister Joy has pointed out, legalising drugs will allow better control over the substances themselves, namely, their quality. This will mean less people who use drugs will be harmed. Surely this is a good thing? Secondly, we will save vast amounts of money on law enforcement. This money can be put to better use in measurable ways that will improve society. Thirdly, legal drugs can be taxed. This too will significantly increase the budget and allow for money to be spent, hopefully in a way that would be worthwhile. Fourthly, it would be possible to influence the drug market in the same way as the sale and use of tobacco and cigarettes are controlled now. Warnings on cigarette lables are one example of how this could be done.

These are all ways in which society would be measurably improved by ending drug prohibition. Do you not agree?

By the way, assuming that all atheists are liberal and/or libertarian is not right, IMO.

I am not assuming that and nowhere in my post did I say this. I say atheists should support decriminalisation/legalisation because:

1. Atheists are rational (therefore less likely to fall for hokey anti-drug propaganda).
2. Drug prohibition has been largely inspired by religious sentiment, from the Temperance Movement to Reagan.

I think that marijuana is only illegal because it would be so difficult to tax. I think that it is far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, but is also much easier to produce in the home. Governments can't stand the idea of something so popular going untaxed.

EXACTLY!

I'm liberal, but I know that anything stronger than marijuana should be strictly controlled because the user can become a danger to not only themsevles, but others as well, similar to second-hand smoke or drunk driving... but much worse.

Then we should make it illegal for someone to drive while under the influence of a drug, or for them to blow marijuana smoke around other people...

Some drugs are so insipid, so controlling and damaging to the brain that the user is no longer capable of deciding for themselve what is and isn't good for them... and alcohol falls into this category.

Yes, the abuse of drugs is damaging to the brain. Likewise, abusing certain drugs can lead to addiction, thus the drug itself can become 'controlling' (though a user, aware of the risk that this might happen but  deciding to use the drug anyway, is not being 'controlled'). But if alcohol fits your description, rlrose328, shouldn't it be illegal?

Is it possible that legalizing these drugs will make them less prevalent than they are now just because they won't be verboten? I don't think so. I think it would be catastrophic to our society. Then again, I, too, have been a close witness to the ravages of meth and heroin, so perhaps my view is skewed... and not in a good way.

I am interested to hear your view as to why, specifically, the legalisation of drugs would be 'catastrophic'.

The truth is, nobody cares about legality when it comes to drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. They really don't, and I don't think it makes a blessed bit of difference to the number of users there are; it just means that there's no meaningful (ie. not fabricated) statistics on them, ergo they don't exist and everyone can relax comfortably with the wool over their eyes.

Thank you! I have been writing an essay on this topic and I've been going over surveys conducted over the past 30 years, and the data has consistently shown this to be the case. People are no more likely to use drugs if they were legal than they are now. Prohibition is not an effective means of prevention.

[SteveS]

Kudos pjkeeley - an inspired and logical position elaborated on at length.  I'm sorry I don't have much to add because I agree with you, fairly strongly, on all your points.

Just a few things I wanted to emphasize:

I am also interested by the number of people here (pretty much everyone) who have been quick to qualify their opinions with a personal aside. It shouldn't matter, yet people assume the only people who would argue for more liberal drug policies must be drug users themselves, or must be 'pro-drugs'.

Haha!  Guilty as charged.  What can I say?  After receiving a lot of "so what - you smoke pot or something?" answers in debates like this, I've gotten used to qualifying my response.  Same goes across the board for me - I think people should be allowed to have and carry firearms, although I do not personally own a gun.  Eh - people get so used to folks arguing from their own personal perspectives that they assume anything you are in favor of allowing is something you personally support doing.  I agree with you entirely that:

In any case, whether or not you use drugs or whether or not you know anyone who uses them should be irrelevent in what is essentially a debate about policy.

Also,

Obviously, drugs can and do put other people at risk. However, it should not be assumed that they will. In a democratic society we are obliged to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. Unless somebody has indeed harmed somebody else, they have committed no crime.

This was very well phrased - I would have to bold this and underline it to convey the strength of my profound agreement.  Specifically, the definition of crime: if I haven't injured anyone else then I have committed no crime.  This fact is, I feel, casually overlooked by both my nation's legal system and the popular opinion of it's citizens.

So - here's an interesting spin-off of this point: back when I was discussing jury nullification, I had a conversation with a libertarian minded co-worker who asked me if I would nullify a drug-possession case: I said "yes".  Then he asked if I would nullify a drug-sales case: this one caused me pause.  My gut was "yes", why should selling the drugs to a person who wants to buy them be illegal?  Who was harmed?  But, what if it was to a child?  Seems to me you'd have to go into specifics in a case like this: was the person buying the drugs in their "right mind", did they really know what they want, or was the "dealer" taking advantage of them?  If they sold a "laced" or improperly prepared drug, this is fraud and I have no problem punishing that with a guilty verdict.  But what if not?  It seems wrong to me if a dealer was pushing something to a person, particularly a young and inexperienced one, who didn't know what they were getting into.  Sure - ultimately it is the fault of the purchaser - but would it be wrong for the seller?  I think I would have to take this on a case-by-case basis.  Sometimes yes, sometimes no - depends.

So - what do you think?  Is selling drugs never illegal, or depends on the details of the case?  I'm curious to hear your opinion.

[donkeyhoty]

but would it be wrong for the seller?

If we're still operating under the current US laws then yes.  I feel large-scale dealers should be punished, but only because of tax evasion.  If I have to pay taxes so do they(fuckin' taxes).  This is a capitalism based society and these guys and gals are just being entrepeneurs(sp?).  I can't fault them for that.  But, I can fault them for using tax-payer funded services like roads, schools, certain museums, stadiums, etc. without actually paying taxes.

By large scale I mean people making enough money to not have to work anywhere else, essentially anyone that makes drug-dealing a full-time job.  There are many dealers, of softer drugs like pot, that are just in it for the "free" drugs and some extra cash.  Punishing these small-scale dealers is a waste of both time and money(if we're assuming prohibition).


Now, if we take a decriminalization, or a full legalization, stance then I assign no fault to any dealers.  If you don't want drugs, don't buy them.  But, with any industy in this country their would be consumer protection, e.g. no tainted drugs, sales in licensed places, etc.  If the dealers screw over their customers, the customers may have civil recourse.  And any punishment or fine for selling to minors, for example, would suit me just fine.

[Justice]

I agree that pj has an excellently written and thoughtful post, but I disagree with his conclusions:

1) All the personal asides simply illustrate how common it is to know someone whose life was harmed by drugs. If we have a shared experience of the negative consequences of drug then, yes, it is absolutely relevant to creating public policy.

2) The argument that you have not committed a crime unless you have harmed someone is false. Allow me to give an example: Let's say I take your lovely daughter out on a date. While I am smooching her, I slip a little GHB in her drink. At that moment, you barge in, spill the drink and beat the crap out of me. Why? I committed no crime. Your daughter never drank. No harm, no foul, right?

3) Your argument seems to be that drugs are relatively safe "if used correctly." But even legal drugs are not very safe. People have adverse affects to pharmaceuticals all the time, which is why it is so difficult to get people med compliant. It is not possible to know all the harmful side effects of a drug. There are even drugs that don't show their damage until the next generation is born and sometimes the generation after that.

And what about drug-drug and drug-food interactions? Are you planning to run clinical testing for all [currently illegal] drugs so that people can make informed choices about them? And regulate the quality of drug preparation? And sue dealers who are negligent? It sounds to me like you are spending a lot of that money we are supposed to be saving by not enforcing drug laws.

4) Finally, we are talking about giving the pharmaceutical industry free reign to sell any drug - even addictive ones. This is the industry with a history of lying about the negative side-effects of [legal] drugs in order to increase profits at the expense of human lives. I believe that is where the word "catastrophe" comes into play. You can be sure they will aggressively market their drugs to increase demand, even creating "safe" and "lite" versions of their drugs. Maybe even secretly manipulating the drugs to make them more addictive.

To continue with your abortion analogy, do people have less abortions now that they are legal? Of course not. The line has become blurred between abortion and birth control, just as making drugs legal will blur the line between drugs and food. Would anyone like a Hostess Cocaine Cupcake?

[donkeyhoty]

All the personal asides simply illustrate how common it is to know someone whose life was harmed by drugs. If we have a shared experience of the negative consequences of drug then, yes, it is absolutely relevant to creating public policy.

Negative consequences have little to do with public policy, i.e cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, genetically modified food(debatable), pesticides, etc.

The argument that you have not committed a crime unless you have harmed someone is false. Allow me to give an example: Let's say I take your lovely daughter out on a date. While I am smooching her, I slip a little GHB in her drink. At that moment, you barge in, spill the drink and beat the crap out of me. Why? I committed no crime. Your daughter never drank. No harm, no foul, right?

Actually, posession of GHB is illegal, and putting it in someone's drink could be considered conspiracy to commit a crime, regardless of whether you get to go through with said crime.  Just as talking about murdering someone on the phone can be considered conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of whether you actually commit the aforementioned murder.

3) Your argument seems to be that drugs are relatively safe "if used correctly." But even legal drugs are not very safe. People have adverse affects to pharmaceuticals all the time, which is why it is so difficult to get people med compliant. It is not possible to know all the harmful side effects of a drug. There are even drugs that don't show their damage until the next generation is born and sometimes the generation after that.

And what about drug-drug and drug-food interactions? Are you planning to run clinical testing for all [currently illegal] drugs so that people can make informed choices about them? And regulate the quality of drug preparation? And sue dealers who are negligent? It sounds to me like you are spending a lot of that money we are supposed to be saving by not enforcing drug laws

I can't speak for anyone else, but personal responsibility is severly lacking in society.  Caveat Emptor.  I don't feel sorry for people that smoke cigarettes and get cancer.  Regardless of the lying the tobacco companies did you are inhaling smoke.  If you're dumb enough to not think of the possible consequences then too bad.

In re: regulation, The market takes care of itself, you know "invisible hand" and all that.  It will not be taxpayer money funding this stuff, it will be people that buy stock in Weed R' Us.  And yes, like any industry, as I mentioned before, if the dealers are negligent or rip you off, you have legal recourse(lemon laws for weed sales).

Finally, we are talking about giving the pharmaceutical industry free reign to sell any drug - even addictive ones. This is the industry with a history of lying about the negative side-effects of [legal] drugs in order to increase profits at the expense of human lives. I believe that is where the word "catastrophe" comes into play. You can be sure they will aggressively market their drugs to increase demand, even creating "safe" and "lite" versions of their drugs. Maybe even secretly manipulating the drugs to make them more addictive.

They're already doing that sort of thing now.  Pot is much safer than Paxil, non-addictive, and you can grow it damn near anywhere.
And once again, if your dumb enough to take heroin, even if legal, you deserve to face the consequences.

Would anyone like a Hostess Cocaine Cupcake?

No.  It'd numb your mouth.
I would take a Hostess pot brownie, cupcake, or snowball, though.

[rlrose328]

Okay, here's a question that I've been pondering as I read this thread:

If you feel that you don't want drugs made illegal because you don't feel you have the right to say what someone can or can't put into their body because it's not your business.  but what about the driver who drank too much (allowed... it's HIS life) who then drives and kills someone?  That then IS damaging to someone else.  Or the heroin addict who kills to get money to buy his drugs?  Or gets high and then goes on a rampage?  (I know, dramatic, but I'm making a point...)

When one takes drugs, they are not always the best people.  The drug creates inhibitions that aren't present when the person is sober.

I fully support letting people make their own choices but when their choices cause ME problems, then I no longer support it.  Like cigarettes... I'm a former smoker.  I'm also asthmatic.  When I'm around cigarette smoke, my lungs close up and I cannot breathe.  I'd like cigarettes banned from all public places.  A smoke-free area is the default... I shouldn't have to NOT go somewhere because smokers are there.  (Like we say "no god" is the default and they must prove he exists... smoke-free is the default and smokers must find somewhere else to be.)

I'm rambling... sorry.  

[Bella]

I'm probably going to sound really cold here, but... I think that all drugs should be made legal. I think that if someone is going to take a drug (whether it is alcohol or crack) to the point that that it is determential to their health... Well... they need to seek help. As it is now, there are institutes for all sorts of addition. It's not surprising, humans are controlled by habit (and dopamine).

I went through the very ineffective DARE program in school... it only made me WANT to try those crazy drugs that would make me see purple dinosaurs (lol). However, finally getting out in the "real world" and seeing people who used those drugs and what their lives were like had a HUGE effect on why I dont use them now.

People are going to do what they want to do, no matter what. It just seems like a spin-off of only teaching abstinence in schools if you only teach that drugs are bad, illegal, and you can't do them.

[rlrose328]

I'm probably going to sound really cold here, but... I think that all drugs should be made legal. I think that if someone is going to take a drug (whether it is alcohol or crack) to the point that that it is determential to their health... Well... they need to seek help. As it is now, there are institutes for all sorts of addition. It's not surprising, humans are controlled by habit (and dopamine).

But what about those who take the drug then harm someone at the same time as themselves?  I realize making the drug illegal won't stop that and if someone is prone to that, they will get around to harming someone even without the drug...

Oh hell... I have no answers.  Ugh.  :roll:

[Bella]

^Like you said, that happens with legal things, too. Cigarettes are actually a great example. I mean, if someone wants to smoke... it's like, "Whatever, dude"... but I do get upset when I travel to another state where it's legal to smoke in front of other people. *gag and cough* Lol, you light up in a crowded public around here and you're going to get hung up by your toe nails.

I guess I'm saying, if people are going to do it, they should be able to do it... Society would probably still ostracize them anyways. When it comes down to how it affects other people (e.g.; secondhand smoke, DUI accidents, not disposing of the needles properly, etc.), that's when the should the law should step in for the rightful sort of punishment.

[Justice]

People are going to have sex anyway, so why teach abstinence in school? Because you don't teach a class for the kids who you can't reach, you do it for the ones you can.

When a 12-year old gets pregnant and has a child, who is bearing the burden of raising that child? Is it the 12-year old? Hardly. It will be her family or it will be society. In either case, someone else is paying the price for her personal freedom.

The same issue exists with drug use. Why is it our business if people want to ruin their lives due to their own incompetence? It's our business because someone is going to have to bear the costs of that decision and it is unlikely to be the drug user. Their family or society will end up picking up the pieces. Even if that just means removing the body.

Your <i>freedom to</i> do what you want intersects with society's desire to have <i>freedom from</i> the consequences of <b>your</b> decisions. If you pretend to have no responsibility to society, you are no different from the man who declared his house a country and demanded sovereign rights.

[Bella]

It is hard to draw a line between an individual's freedom and societies freedom... because we all make up society and we all impact each other in some way. However, a line NEEDS to be drawn between how much power the government (as selfish and corrupt as it is) has over each person's freedom.

I don't understand what you're saying about teaching abstinence in school... Are you FOR teaching abstinence in school? I was suggesting that teaching children the in's and out's (no pun intended... well... originally, heh) of sex and how to protect themselves was much better than saying "Don't do this until you're married or you'll die of AIDS". I was likeining it to the DARE program where they said, "Don't smoke pot, or you'll die from a crack OD". It seems much more efficent to focus on educating people instead of saying, "No, you can't do this" and proceeding to scare the crap out of them.

[Justice]

I am for educating people on the consequences of their actions. So yes, I would support an anti-drug program. [I have never been to a DARE meeting, so I can't comment on that one specifically.] I also would support teaching abstinence, but not from a religious perspective and not instead of sex education, but as part of sex education. Letting kids believe that a condom is going to prevent them from getting pregnant is just ignorant and unscientific.

[Bella]

^But that's not teaching abstinence... that's just educating them. Similarly, if you NEVER have a drink, you're NEVER going to be an alcoholic... no matter your genetic disposition. But, some people drink and aren't alcoholics, some people drink and are alcoholics, some people are alcoholics and learned to control their drinking... Have you ever seen that show, "Intervention"? It's really interesting to see the different sorts of people who are addicted to different sorts of things (alcohol, eating disorders, opiates, heroin, etc.) and their different sorts of personalities. Shit happens. People do stupid things. However, educating people will not only help prevent usage or at least encourage smarter usage (I think), but will make it easier for addicts to get help.

I hate to keep bringing this back to sex-related topics... but women used to give themselves abortions with coat hangers and... die. Now, if there is a mistake, it is more socially accepted to do that in a safer way. Yea, it sucks... I'm sure rehab sucks... but bringing it into the open, regulating it, and making it easier for people to deal with it when something gets out of hand seems much more efficient. I'm not saying drugs are good and I'm not trying to push my views on abortion, I'm saying that trying to tell people that they just CAN'T do something isn't going to work.

[Justice]

Sorry. I thought you said don't teach abstinence. You said don't teach <i>only</i> abstinence.

[SteveS]

Wow - lots of post since I last checked this - good topic!  Its gotten everyone riled up!

donkeyhoty - the tax evasion issue was something I honestly hadn't considered.  I agree with you that if we all decide to support a common system and a person is benefiting and living within that system without likewise supporting it that this is wrong.  I would happily convict them of tax evasion.  I have issues with taxes, of course, but not in the fashion that is germane to this point.  I agree with your view here.

Justice - I'd like to respond to your first two numbered points:

1) All the personal asides simply illustrate how common it is to know someone whose life was harmed by drugs. If we have a shared experience of the negative consequences of drug then, yes, it is absolutely relevant to creating public policy.

This depends entirely on your view of society and the individual.  As a libertarian-minded person I come down square on the side of the individual.  I think societies exist only to the benefit of the individual constituents --- if society is made more important than the individuals than society should be disbanded - pure and simple.

The things that you list as negatives to drug usage are all very excellent reasons for an individual to decide not to use the drugs.  Fundamentally I agree with your reasoning, and as a result I don't use the drugs myself.  But - is this grounds for public policy?  I don't think so - I think public policy should limit itself to the interaction between individuals.  To enforce a ban on drugs because many individuals, however logical and rational, have decided that drug usage is wrong is, to me, immoral.  What we're doing is promoting the views of particular persons over everyone else in a mandatory fashion.  I don't understand why somebody would want to use some of these drugs, but I do understand that that person is different from me --- and I'm willing to give that person the freedom to do as they choose for themselves, because I want that same freedom for me.

2) The argument that you have not committed a crime unless you have harmed someone is false. Allow me to give an example: Let's say I take your lovely daughter out on a date. While I am smooching her, I slip a little GHB in her drink. At that moment, you barge in, spill the drink and beat the crap out of me. Why? I committed no crime. Your daughter never drank. No harm, no foul, right?

I very strongly disagree with you here.  We're talking about voluntary drug usage by individuals - slipping somebody else GHB without their knowledge is very clearly wrong and doesn't qualify what-so-ever as voluntary usage of a drug.

Saying that you didn't actually administer the drug yet is fairly irrelevant to me --- if your intention was not to administer the GHB without her knowledge, then why did you put it in her drink without telling her?  When judging the morality of an act I think intended consequence are very important (please don't take my usage of the word "you" personally - I understand we were talking about a hypothetical example here).

If I follow this argument out, its like saying that I shot a handgun at a store clerk but missed, so nobody was harmed, so no crime, right?  When I said that a crime involves harm to somebody else, and although I wasn't explicit, I have to take this in the context of a person acting to bring about an intended result.  Trying to kill somebody and take their wallet is no less of a crime to me if the would-be victim is able to successfully defend their person from the would-be perpetrator.  Intending to cause harm to others is a crime.  Your intention, in this case, would be to violate the other person's right --- this is what makes it a crime.  Whether you are successful or not might alter the consequence of having committed the crime, but a crime was committed never-the-less.  IMO, of course.

To get this context back on track - imagine a girl decides to sit in her own basement and give herself GHB (why? - who knows, who cares).  Now --- who is she harming?  Who's right is she violating?  What other person has she prevented from seeking their own life, liberty and happiness?  The current law would find her guilty of a crime - possession of GHB.  I would not find her guilty of a crime because her actions where not made with the intention of violating any other person's individual rights.

Does this make more sense?