Illegal drugs

[SteveS]

Who do you think you are, John Locke?

 Just having fun....

One thing about the treatment for drugs, and to play of off my "rights and responsibilities" statement ---- hand in hand with my ideology of "right to use" comes "responsibility for use".  In other words, if a person destroyed their body on some nefarious drug - why should society be burdened with a mandatory tax to help recuperate the individual?  If they can support their own clinic payments and recuperate themselves by their own means - more power to 'em.  But if somebody blows all their money on drugs and ends up with a wasted dying body then comes looking for the rest of us to bail them out - this is where I invoke "personal responsibility".  I would feel no obligation to assist.  I might choose to do so, but I resent any obligation to do so.

So, I guess my thoughts are double-edged: I say yes to more freedom, but I also say yes to more personal responsibility.  It makes no sense to me to have one without the other.

[MommaSquid]

I say yes to more freedom, but I also say yes to more personal responsibility. It makes no sense to me to have one without the other.

Well said.  

[donkeyhoty]

One thing about the treatment for drugs, and to play of off my "rights and responsibilities" statement ---- hand in hand with my ideology of "right to use" comes "responsibility for use". In other words, if a person destroyed their body on some nefarious drug - why should society be burdened with a mandatory tax to help recuperate the individual? If they can support their own clinic payments and recuperate themselves by their own means - more power to 'em. But if somebody blows all their money on drugs and ends up with a wasted dying body then comes looking for the rest of us to bail them out - this is where I invoke "personal responsibility". I would feel no obligation to assist. I might choose to do so, but I resent any obligation to do so.

Well, you're already paying for their arrest and incarceration, and for poppy and coca farmers to not cultivate those crops.  But, you probably meant if "drugs" were legal.

[SteveS]

Well, you're already paying for their arrest and incarceration

Indeed  - and plenty of them haven't harmed anyone else, either.  Makes to no sense to me.

By the way, I agree with you that if drugs were legal it would be easier to find help.  Clinics for treatment of the users would have a very legitimate market plan.

[SteveS]

Here's a question: should we now consider "Aqua Dots" illegal drugs?    

Think of the children!

[MommaSquid]

Here's a question: should we now consider "Aqua Dots" illegal drugs?    

I just saw the article about the recall.  My poor niece will be disappointed when Santa doesn't bring her any Aqua Dots.  

[Justice]

The lesson of this thread is that even atheists are willing to ignore science and reason when it suits their political agendas. Every single argument made for legalizing drugs in this thread has already been refuted, indeed most are self-refuting. Yet the self-congratulatory posts continue, as if you have won something by confusing a few people on this issue.

Let's for a moment look at the original post:

Most of the 'moral' basis for the prohibition of illegal drugs is grounded on religion.

Perhaps that is why the laws were written, but it is not the reason they remain on the books. There are plenty of medical/scientific reasons to control access to drugs.

All drugs should be made legal and atheists in particular should be supportive of policies furthering the cause of decriminalisation/legalisation of illicit substances.

All dangerous substances should be controlled. And atheists, being students of science and reason, should understand the rationale.

Drug education should be left to parents and families. If governments must intervene by giving drug information to schools and the public, that information should be unbiased and accurate, starting with the assumption that anyone should be allowed to choose whether or not they use drugs, not be pursuaded from the get-go that all drugs are bad all of the time and that all drug users are addicts and bad people.

Except that all drugs are - in fact - bad. (Unless you do not consider things like depression, memory loss, cancer, stroke and hallucinations bad.)

The unpopular fact is this: we have one life to live. We all want to enjoy it as best we can. Drugs can help, but only if they are used responsibly, in the same moderation as alcohol.

Most drugs (including marijuana and cocaine) are ultimately depressants. The suggestion that taking depressants can make life more enjoyable is prima facie absurd. But when you add to this the fact that most drugs are addictive and unpredictable, it becomes irresponsible.

--------------------------------------------------------------

But then the argument turns to "personal freedom." Well how much "personal freedom" does a baby in the womb have? Because they are the most innocent victims of drug abuse. Or do you plan to make drug use illegal during pregnancy? How exactly would you legislate that while maintaining that people have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies?

[Justice]

Here is the link to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a division of the National Institute of Health:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDAHome.html

[pjkeeley]

I think it's a case of those who favour personal freedoms versus those who favour a more protective state. I understand that you have strong personal feelings about drugs, Justice, however, I don't feel this is an excuse for poorly-argued conclusions such as this:

Except that all drugs are - in fact - bad. (Unless you do not consider things like depression, memory loss, cancer, stroke and hallucinations bad.)

I firmly disagree. Correct me if I misread you, but you seem to be strongly  implying that the reason that all drugs are bad (itself a contestable assertion) is because they cause the things you listed. In what appear to me to be very obvious ways, I feel it is just not so simple as that. The effects caused by a drug are dependent on a number of factors, including the type of drug, the dosage, the adulterants it may contain, the method through which it is used, the number of times it is used, and possibly more besides. Would you agree? The effects you listed, while indeed terrible, are not associated merely with drug use. They are possible effects of drug abuse, and this I believe must be seperated conceptually from the former.

Because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not seem to be arguing out of ignorance, I have looked up the examples you gave in an effort to work out which drugs supposedly cause which problems and why. I would be interested to see where your knowledge comes from because I believe your false assumptions and exaggerations show that you are misinformed.

Depression -- While there are links between drug use and depression, they are not necessarily causal (rarely so, in fact). Many people who are depressed use drugs as a means of relieving or escaping the symptoms of depression; in this sense the depression causes the drug use, and not the other way around! Furthermore, the stresses ecountered in someone's life which might make drug use more appealing may be the cause of the depression, not the drug use itself. Where using drugs does directly cause depression, it is likely a result of drug addiction (financial and social changes wrought by a drug habit or as a result of withdrawl symptoms). The latter effects however can only be ascribed to addictive drugs, and certainly not all are. (Source: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/dep ... 000487.htm)

It should be noted that alcohol when abused is addictive and is associated with depression also. Do any non-addictive drugs cause depression? Ecstasy, when used heavily and frequently, is linked with depleted seratonin levels which can contribute to depression. But ecstasy is not an addictive drug, and choosing to use the drug in a way that would bring about these changes would be just that: the user's choice. (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081324.htm)

Memory loss -- Again, this results from long term, heavy use (ie. abuse) of a drug (cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy being the most commonly cited). (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/memory/unde ... buse.shtml)

Cancer --  I'm not sure where you got this from. Smoking anything, including marijuana, contributes to the risk of lung cancer. Apart from that, which drugs did you believe were carcinogenic? Can you provide any sources that could confirm this? I don't doubt that some are, but not in any serious way. Everything gives you cancer. Being exposed to the world gives you cancer.

Stroke -- Apparently drug use can contribute to this (though it is far from being directly causal as you implied). But so can lots of things. Bad diet, lack of excercise, ALCOHOL, and just excess stress. We regard all these as being legitimate choices, why not drug use? (Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l531371113kp1108/)

Hallucinations -- Obviously, using hallucinogenic drugs will cause hallucinations (unless your dealer ripped you off). These are what the user seeks to experience when taking these drugs. There is a risk that in some users, hallucinations return for varying periods of time after using the drug (known as HPPD). But this affects only a portion of hallucinogen users, and severe HPPD, to the point where it becomes debilitating, is very rare. This is a risk I believe educated people should be allowed to take. (Source:  http://dir.salon.com/story/health/addic ... /lsd_hppd/)

Most drugs (including marijuana and cocaine) are ultimately depressants.

You are very wrong on this. Cocaine is a stimulant. It is the precise opposite of a depressant! It will make you more alert. Think: 1970s disco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine

The suggestion that taking depressants can make life more enjoyable is prima facie absurd.

Only if you are confused as to what these terms mean. 'Depressant' does not mean it will make you depressed.   It means it will affect the functioning of your nervous system in a way that reduces alertness, or sedates you. Alcohol is a depressant too. That feeling of swaying and light-headed-ness you get when you're drunk? It is similar, though not the same, as when you're stoned. It's a good feeling! That's why people do it. Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be encouraged, but facts are facts. It is a good feeling. Otherwise no one would do it. Ask them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressant

Returning to your statement that "all drugs are bad": this is your opinion, nothing more. I don't believe all drugs are. All drugs, when used irresonsibly, have the potential to harm. But some less so than others, and many are very safe (compared to say, alcohol). I don't believe marijuana, esctasy or hallucinogenic drugs are "bad". They are not addictive, and as long as people are aware of the risks involved, there is essentially nothing wrong with their use. People don't become violent or dangerous when using these drugs. If anything the drug causes them to become more contemplative and open towards others.

In the end, I think I'd fear a late-night encounter with a drunk person more than anyone else on any other drug.

[SteveS]

Justice - I don't disagree with you that the majority of these drugs seem bad to me - this, rather than the simple fact that they are illegal, is directly why I do not choose to take them.  However, I also feel that just because they seem bad to me does not give me the right to say that they must seem bad to everyone.

I think the root of our disagreement, between us, is our political view - how we view the role of societies and individuals.  For example, when you say:

All dangerous substances should be controlled.

Okay - controlled by whom?  Who gets to decide what is dangerous, what is not dangerous, and on what basis?  Who gets to decide what level of potential-health-damaging substance use is allowable for a persons enjoyment, and what level is "too much"?  I argue that inherent to this statement, that "all dangerous substances should be controlled", is an expectation of positions of authority over others.  My political philosophy is that we are all equal and all in possession of the same rights - I argue that there is no legitimate grounds on which another human being can claim a right to authority over me - nor me over them.

This is a political disagreement - hardly what I would consider pushing a 'political agenda' - or aren't you just as guilty of pushing your own political agenda over me?  Telling me that I must submit to a position of authority that has "made my choice for me"?  If we view disagreement as 'agenda pushing' then we are both equally guilty - pure and simple.

As a student of science and reason I have come to the conclusion that positions of authority over other human beings are illegitimately obtained and that they cannot be rationally justified.  Why?  Because they inevitably involve arguing the superiority of one's personal view over another's personal view.  But there is no absolute rule by which to judge a view as "superior" - these judgments are all subjective to the individual and what they feel is the goal of their life - and no matter how hard we try, a subjective view cannot be rationally objectified.

Except that all drugs are - in fact - bad.

Bad for what?  One's health?  This idea presupposes that every person should be seeking to live their life in the best possible health.  While this might seem like a mostly good idea to me (not completely good) - who am I to say that my ideal must apply to other individuals?  On what rational basis can I claim authority to dictate the goals of other people's  lives?  My 'political agenda' is simply that we each own our own lives and our own bodies - they are ours to do with as we please up to the extent that we do not take this same basic right away from other people.

I'm not arguing that people should take drugs - I'm arguing that I shouldn't be telling other people what to do.  And they, likewise, should not be telling me.  If I can't apply this philosophy to an issue like drugs - then I'm a hypocrite pure and simple.

I understand your feeling that drug usage is bad, and I understand why you hold that opinion.  With the exception of at least one drug (alcohol) I agree with you.  I do not agree that we should be subjected to a position of authority to control our access to drugs because that authority has deemed them harmful.  Can you understand my motivation for having my opinion?  I certainly wasn't trying to confuse anybody - I'm trying to state that my opinion on the permissibility of drug usage does not involve whether or not I think the substance is 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' - but rather whether or not I think people should claim authority to 'control' the lives of others.

Cheers,
Steve

[donkeyhoty]

Justice, have you seen the film Demolition Man?


All kidding aside, look up the Shafer Commission, aka The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, and it will tell you all you need to know about, "all drugs are bad", or maybe not, but it does include that all mighty science and reason.

[pjkeeley]

Good points SteveS. In particular:

Bad for what? One's health? This idea presupposes that every person should be seeking to live their life in the best possible health. While this might seem like a mostly good idea to me (not completely good) - who am I to say that my ideal must apply to other individuals? On what rational basis can I claim authority to dictate the goals of other people's lives? My 'political agenda' is simply that we each own our own lives and our own bodies - they are ours to do with as we please up to the extent that we do not take this same basic right away from other people.

This is very true. And if we were to judge the legality of something based solely on how bad it is for you or how much risk is involved, lots more things would have to be made illegal than just drugs.

Justice, have you seen the film Demolition Man?

Exactly!

The thing is, while I agree on all the political points you raised SteveS, I would go further in my opposition to Justice's claim that all drugs are bad. As I hope I have demonstrated in my post, not all drugs are. And the idea that, used responsibly, drugs can't improve people's lives is completely bogus. It's just the anti-drug stance we are force-fed from a young age. Personally, cocaine and heroin I would call bad drugs, because the negative consequences in the long term outweigh the positive short term effects. Even still, people who use those drugs should not be treated as bad people. If we did have a society in which drug use was not a criminal act and people were properly educated on what drugs are and what they do, people would feel the same way about junkies and addicts as they do about alcoholics now. But there happens to be the extra stigma of criminality attached too, and that's what really makes me mad. I guess my point is, regardless of whether you think drugs are good or bad (I think it's dumb to lump all drugs into a category like that but whatever), the people who use drugs should not be regarded as criminals and deviants! They are just people who make different choices to you.

[SteveS]

Hey pj - I think we were both working on our responses at the same time.  I think you hit the nail on the head here:

I think it's a case of those who favour personal freedoms versus those who favour a more protective state.

This seems to be the ultimate truth of the matter. I (obviously) favor personal freedoms.  Anyway - I hear the points you raise about the harms of these drugs being exaggerated, you did address this very well, and your points seem sound to me.  But none-the-less, and honestly, my position is primarily motivated by my political philosophy (as you predicted).

Also,

I guess my point is, regardless of whether you think drugs are good or bad (I think it's dumb to lump all drugs into a category like that but whatever), the people who use drugs should not be regarded as criminals and deviants! They are just people who make different choices to you.

I agree with this very strongly.

Justice - I can't help it that I agree with these other posters - I feel badly that you consider some of these posts "self-congratulatory".  I think I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree politically (or philosophically, or whatever we want to call it).  This is not just cause for any personal slams - please don't take any of my words to be personal attacks - I'm just speaking my mind.

And I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion - it wouldn't be nearly as interesting if everybody agreed.  Kudos for speaking your mind - and my sincere apology if I've come across as overly contentious or self-congratulatory.  It was not my intention.

[pjkeeley]

I think I've been partly guilty of the "self-congratulatory" thing, but that's only because I'm so thrilled at the quality of arguments here in my favour. It's so rare to have people agree with me on this issue! There seem to be very few people who, like me, are for the most part non-drug users, yet are willing to embrace a more liberal stance on the issue of illegal drugs.

I think both Justice and I feel strongly about this issue. I probably tend to sound as if I'm angry at those who disagree with me, when in fact I'm angry at having to be in such a small minority of people who feel this way. I agree with SteveS though that this discussion has been really enjoyable and thought provoking, because of rather than in spite of our disagreement.

[Justice]

I appreciate your responses. Particularly because I left myself wide open for being flamed, and you guys were decent enough to take the high ground. I think there are a few different issues and that mixing them together has made this discussion more confusing than it needs to be.

ISSUE #1 - Personal freedom versus protective state

I would never agree with a statement like:

My political philosophy is that we are all equal and all in possession of the same rights - I argue that there is no legitimate grounds on which another human being can claim a right to authority over me - nor me over them.

The fact that we are all equal does not equate to "nobody has a right to have authority over me." While we are all equal in the sense that we are all people, we do not have equal knowledge and technical expertise. One of the problems with modern communication is that it creates the illusion that anyone can be an expert. I can spend a few hours researching drugs on the internet and appear to know quite a lot. But in reality, I know next to nothing compared to a research scientist working in the field.

Also, the 'social contract' requires that authority be given others to make certain decisions. Otherwise, how would you and I figure out where my backyard ends and yours begins? And again, how does your approach make provision for people who are not in a position to make reasonable decisions for themselves, such as fetuses, small children, developmentally disabled people, etc.

Anyway, it is fair to say that on issue #1 we disagree entirely, which is fine. One of my best friends is a relativist who probably makes you two libertarians seems conservative by contrast.

ISSUE #2 - How dangerous are drugs really?

This is where Steve and I seem to have "violent agreement." Steve, you don't really seem to disagree with me on this one, except as relates to Issue #1. Even PJ does not seem to disagree with me on this one too strongly, going so far as to call cocaine and heroin "bad drugs."

To clarify, cocaine is a depressant because when you "come down" from your brief high, you are chemically (not emotionally) depressed. This is what creates the physical and psychological dependence. Most drugs have a similar effect, even prescription drugs. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that even if drugs do not actually cause (emotional) depression, they certainly worsen it. Even an anti-depressant can increase your risk of suicide by a factor of 6.

As for cancer, I was referring to the fact that marijuana contains more cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco.

And to address the question:

The effects caused by a drug are dependent on a number of factors, including the type of drug, the dosage, the adulterants it may contain, the method through which it is used, the number of times it is used, and possibly more besides. Would you agree?

This is missing the point. Yes, it depends on all those things. The problem is that there is no way to assess the risk.

Do you know whether you are predisposed to heart arrythmia? whether you are high risk for developing epilepsy? tardive dyskenesia? how many blood clots do you currently have in your brain? what will be the effect of thinning or thickening your blood on those clot? Can you answer all these questions for me? No? So what do you mean when you talk about "using drugs responsibly and safely?" Let's be clear: Sudden death can occur from your very first use of cocaine!!

Finally, there is ISSUE #3: Should people who use drugs be viewed as criminals and deviants?

No. There is a strong movement in the medical profession to view drug abuse as a psychological illness. In addition, there is a movement in the mental health profession to view psychological illness as a medical illness, not a moral weakness. I support both points of view. And again, I do not see this as a major point of difference between the three of us.