Illegal drugs

[Tom62]

Hmm...  interesting topic. I agree with Justice that some people need to be protected against themselves and that we need to be protected against them when they causes us harm.  So, far so good. But I also agree with the other posters that I should have the right to do with my body what I want. They are also right in saying that you can prevent people using drugs making them illegal just doesn't work (it only creates an interesting market for crimimals). I kind of like the Dutch approach.

Dutch law make a clear distinction between hard drugs (drugs with unacceptable risks involved) and soft drugs (drugs with limited risks). Hard drugs are illegal and sentences run up to 12 years imprisonment. Strictly speaking the sale and use of soft drugs is illegal too, but use and possession for personal use (up to 30 grams) a blind eye is turned and you will not be  prosecuted. The Dutch government believe by keeping soft drugs separate from other drugs it makes it possible to control it more and therefore stop people turning to harder drugs and hopefully away from crime and addiction..

Does it work? - The statistics say so, there were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1996. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. (source: Justice Department).

[pjkeeley]

I appreciate your efforts to streamline the dicussion Justice. In my last post I was dealing primarily with issue #2, which personally I find irrelevent to the question of whether drugs should be illegal or not. However, I'm aware that you do find it relevent, and in your case it would then relate back to issue #1: if you feel that the state has an obligation to protect society from drugs because they are bad, then obviously you would support criminalising drugs. But to me, whether or not drugs are bad doesn't factor into discussion about their legality. Moreover, since I don't agree that all drugs are bad, I am thus left further convinced that they should not be illegal.

So:

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.

Indeed. Although I still contend that you are using the term 'depressant' wrongly, or at least using a different definition from the medical one (ie. a category of drug which depresses the nervous system).

Regardless, I believe that in spite of the fact that drugs may worsen depression, and may be hazardous to one's health, the choice to use them or not still rests with the user, provided she is properly educated on their effects. I could draw comparisons to other things that we choose to do in spite of negative consequences. It may not be a totally fair comparison, but many teenagers listen to very depressing music with nihilistic or even suicidal themes. They choose to do so, and it may very well worsen their depression and lead to their suicide. But I could never support a prohibition on depressing music, because that would be a significant reduction of people's freedom. Take another example: fatty or unhealthy foods. I know for a fact that eating greasy fast food is bad for my health, clogging my arteries and increasing my risk of heart disease, and so on. But once again I could never support a prohibition on junk food, because it would seem unjust to 'protect' people from it. They have the right, in my opinion, to eat however unhealthily they wish if that's what they enjoy doing. They can even wash it all down with a big bottle of turpentine if they so desire, though I would strongly urge them not to.   :wink:

But I think the best example of my point is the two most popular, most dangerous (in terms of accounting for the most deaths) drugs in society today: alcohol and tobacco. I can't rationalise keeping these dangerous substances legal whilst making another (IMO, arbitrary) category of substances illegal. It is, in my mind, highly inconsistent. That is why, even though I don't smoke, detest smoking and think society would be better of without it, I still could never support a prohibition on smoking. People have the right to choose, knowing the risks, to continue smoking. Even people addicted to smoking can choose to get help, or find a way of quitting. They shouldn't be protected from themselves.

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!!

Sudden death can also occur from walking across the street. But more to the point, a risky behaviour such as rock-climbing or sky-diving could entail a horrific death, but we don't make those behaviours illegal. I see drugs as being similar: a risky recreational activity that some people choose to engage in.

I find your most convincing argument for controlling drugs the idea that our own freedoms might be violated if drugs were legal (specifically as you said, the freedom to be safe from harm). But as I hopefully made clear in other posts, I don't believe the risk that drug users pose to me is a significant one. For one thing, there are already people using drugs despite their illegality, and those people are either going to harm me or they aren't, but I can't do much about it because they are acting outside of the law. However, to date I have never been harmed by a drug user under the influence of a drug and I don't know of anyone who has. I'd be interested to see the statistics on this, but I have a feeling violent crime is rarely found to be caused by a drug intoxication (yes, it may often occur simultaneously, but the cause would almost always be unrelated to the drug).

So I think the risk of being the victim of violent crime caused by the effects of a drug intoxication is very minimal, but I don't have the statistics to back this up, so if you can refute me I'd be happy to concede that point. But since people are using drugs regardless of their legal status, the only available premise left to advance your argument that drugs should be controlled because drug users are a danger to us, is if it were known that more people would start using drugs once they became legal (thus increasing, presumably, the instance of violent crime caused by drug intoxication). Well, I researched this point while working on an essay this semester about drug policy, and looked at statistics gathered by the government from door to door surveys. The results show that the main reason people do not use drugs, by their own account, is because they are 'just not interested' (something like 70% of respondants put this). Fear of being caught, or simply not having access to the drugs (I think it is implied here that the lack of access is due to prohibiton), both rated substantially lower. Basically, very few people are motivated not to use drugs purely based on their legal status.

For this reason, I don't think there would be any major increase in drug users following a hypothetical legalisation of drugs. Right now, if people want drugs, it is simply a matter of knowing someone who knows someone, or being in the right place at the right time. I think if most people on this forum really wanted an illegal drug, they could probably get it eventually (Bella made this point in an earlier post).

In sum, I contend that:
1) Drugs are not a significant factor in causing violent crime; and
2) If drugs were made legal that risk would not significantly increase, and therefore
3) I contend that drugs do not pose a risk to me that is worth restricting my freedom for.

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.

This seems inconsitent to me. If you support criminalisation of drug possession/use, then it follows that you must think of drug users as criminals. I see no way around it.

I eagerly anticipate your response, though I somehow don't think either one of us will be pursuaded of the other side's point of view.

As for Holland's drug policy:

Dutch law make a clear distinction between hard drugs (drugs with unacceptable risks involved) and soft drugs (drugs with limited risks). Hard drugs are illegal and sentences run up to 12 years imprisonment. Strictly speaking the sale and use of soft drugs is illegal too, but use and possession for personal use (up to 30 grams) a blind eye is turned and you will not be prosecuted. The Dutch government believe by keeping soft drugs separate from other drugs it makes it possible to control it more and therefore stop people turning to harder drugs and hopefully away from crime and addiction..

Does it work? - The statistics say so, there were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1996. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. (source: Justice Department).

I think the Dutch approach is far more pragmatic and sensible than the drug policy of most other nations. Yet the fact that it is still illegal, even if the authorities don't enforce the law, still makes me uneasy. I wouldn't know where I stand. How do I know they won't start enforcing it if say, the police didn't particularly like me? Suppose I was smoking a joint in an Amsterdam cafe and a cop didn't like the way I was talking about the Dutch football team, so he decided to bust me for it. It's still technically illegal right, so he could do that? Don't get me wrong, I really favour the Dutch approach, but I don't think it's ideal, philosophically speaking.

[Justice]

This has been an interesting discussion. I would like to think on your post, so I am not going to respond right away except for one quick point.

When you said it is inconsistent to criminalize something if you do not view drug users as criminals, I think you are viewing the legal system too narrowly. There are many examples of laws which criminalize certain activities without necessarily stigmatizing the actor as a criminal:

1) Traffic Laws such as speeding, jaywalking, etc.
2) Health Code Laws (eg. attempting suicide.)

[SteveS]

Hey Justice - I think you're right, we are ultimately going to completely disagree on Issue #1 (by-the-way, I agree with the way you have broken out the issue involved in the discussion - I see this separation in a similar way, although #2 and #3 seem very closely linked - but we've got to draw a line somewhere it seems, so I'm good with the separation).

Anyway, just a few rejoinders (I hope this doesn't count as too bad of derail - just keep in mind that these points are directly linked to the way I feel about the "Original Topic"):

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.

I certainly concede that we do not all have equal knowledge and expertise.  The realm of human knowledge has become so vast and covers such diverse topics that I'm not sure any one person can qualify as an expert across the board.

Where we disagree is that I don't think holding an expert opinion qualifies a person to a position of authority.  I do, however, think that a reasonable action for a person to take is to listen to expert advice and use it to guide their actions.  My complaint is authority through force (law, sanctions, etc) - I don't think a person has a right to say "You must do as a say because I am more expert on the topic than you".  The expert could present a valid argument that if I desire certain goals then I should heed and follow his/her advice: but I don't think I must.  Eh, at least if we disagree here we have made progress in identifying the disagreement.  :wink:  

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.

Ah - the stickiest issue with the libertarian philosophy!  It is on these grounds that many charge the philosophy is "impractical".  Suffice it to say that I agree with you that there is a need for a non-violent method of arbitration - this method should be voluntary.  If you and I had a dispute on the boundaries of our yards, we should both feel comfortable willingly giving this disagreement over to a fair and unbiased arbitration process - arguing our cases and abiding by the decision of the arbiter (presuming, of course, that we could not work it out on our own - we should at least try first).  The only other method to resolve disputes like this is unattractive - what else would we do?  Fight to the death, winner takes all?  This seems barbaric.

I would, however, distinguish this process from a simple matter of authority - the arbiter can't just do whatever he/she wants, and in order to maintain the voluntary trust of the people he/she will have to have reasonable grounds for making decisions.  This is how I see the social contract - we agree to abide by rational procedures that are fairly applied.  In order to maintain civility we are going to have to accept that some times decisions are not going to be in our favor - yet we must accept this to live a non-violent life in a peaceful society.  So rather than seeing this as submitting to authority, I see this as voluntary participation in dispute resolution.  Why should I 'voluntarily' participate?  Because I desire a peaceful life.  Why should I abide by the decision?  Because I desire a peaceful life.

Part 2: What about those who cannot make their own decision?  In this case I agree that they must be cared for.  A young child, upon birth, is completely dependent upon others for its basic needs.  The child, in being cared for by others, is not conceding any personal freedoms because it cannot concede anything - it has no ability to choose or provide for itself.  So the way I see this, then, is that a person can care for another in these circumstances without there being an infringement of justice.  With rights come responsibilities - if the child cannot be held responsible for its own provision - than how can it have this as a right?  Make any sense - or am I just nuts?  :wink:

[Justice]

I think the libertarian system would work perfectly well if everyone was self-interested and rational (whatever that means.) The problem is that not everyone thinks logically, not everyone is interested in peace, and some people are not willing to endure the slightest inconvenience, even if it means life or death for someone else.

Personally, I see the Libertarian world view as an offshoot of the Randian world view. And frankly, Atlas Shrugged has become a poor man's bible for religious escapees. It is simply naive to believe you can construct a society based strictly on reason and fair trade, with no need for government. Firstly, not everyone has equal access to logic. And secondly, it is possible that there are non-logical thought processes which have validity.

In any case, a truly libertarian world view would not rule out violence as a method to solve problems. If I want to solve our backyard debate with a gun, who are you to say I am  wrong? Where does your moral authority come from to suggest that my rights end where other's begin? My rights never end. I am the ultimate authority!

Ah, but that is not a rational way of thinking, is it? Oh wait, since when are you the authority on what is rational and what is not? I say it is rational! Why dio you get to define reality for someone else? And so on and so on.

[Justice]

Let me add that I am not suggesting that other's should have authority strictly because they have expert knowledge. Authority has to be given them through the consent of the governed. I am merely pointing out that there is a legitimate need for such authorities to be designated.

[SteveS]

In any case, a truly libertarian world view would not rule out violence as a method to solve problems. If I want to solve our backyard debate with a gun, who are you to say I am wrong? Where does your moral authority come from to suggest that my rights end where other's begin? My rights never end. I am the ultimate authority!

Ah, but that is not a rational way of thinking, is it? Oh wait, since when are you the authority on what is rational and what is not? I say it is rational! Why dio you get to define reality for someone else? And so on and so on.

I hear and appreciate the criticism - but I think these views are not really a part of the libertarian ideal.  The philosophy specifically prohibits aggression.  Solving the back yard debate with a gun would be considered verboten - because you are now taking your desire for property as a 'higher' priority than my rights - in this case my right to life.  Since I, not you, own my life taking this away from me would be the greatest possible transgression - simply because you can't make it right by giving it back (unless I'm Jesus and I can resurrect myself - then you get a mulligan  :wink:  ).

There would be no moral authority - only a moral understanding.  My rights do end where yours began - because we have an understanding that we can only claim rights up to the extent that we do not take the same rights from others.  This is how the philosophy views people as 'equal' - one's rights cannot surpass another's.

The wiki has a fairly decent description, and it deals with the violence issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

If you do read the wiki - please don't ask me which flavor of libertarian I am - I really don't know  :wink:  .

Just one more thing,

Authority has to be given them through the consent of the governed.

This is approaching a fine idea to me - as long as the 'authority' is more of an 'arbitration', limited in scope to specific instances for specific purposes.  And - we must truly consent.  I think you've laid the first brick in the road to a more reasonable society.

Finally - to flip this back on track to the drug issue - I certainly don't see how the possessor and user of drugs currently considered illegal is in any way violating any right that I can reasonably claim to have.  They are not initiating aggression against me, nor are they defrauding me.  In short - I see their actions as totally irrelevant to my own claims to freedom.  If I want freedom for myself, then I have to tolerate freedom for others - even if I don't agree with what they do with their freedom.  Who cares?  I can still do what I want with mine.

[donkeyhoty]

I think the Dutch approach is far more pragmatic and sensible than the drug policy of most other nations. Yet the fact that it is still illegal, even if the authorities don't enforce the law, still makes me uneasy. I wouldn't know where I stand. How do I know they won't start enforcing it if say, the police didn't particularly like me? Suppose I was smoking a joint in an Amsterdam cafe and a cop didn't like the way I was talking about the Dutch football team, so he decided to bust me for it. It's still technically illegal right, so he could do that? Don't get me wrong, I really favour the Dutch approach, but I don't think it's ideal, philosophically speaking

The Dutch Model, although better than most anyone's still has flaws.  Firstly, cultivation, other than a small amount at home, is still illegal.  Thus it is difficult to support all the narco-tourism with home-grown supplies.  Coffee-shops need to resort to extra-legal matters to get all their drugs.  As it were, Holland has a problem with drug-smuggling. (Although this discounts the effect all the large Dutch ports and the massive amount of trade that moves through them, legal or otherwise, would have on drug smuggling irrespective of decriminalized pot.)

Tom62 could probably elaborate, but I believe there are propositions to change the laws regarding cultivation, or even to reverse the decriminalization - although that would hurt tourism.  I also think they've shut down the shops that sold mushrooms.

[Tom62]

There are indeed propositions to change the dutch drugslaws, but it is very hard to turn back the clock after so many years. Nethertheless the dutch are under great pressure from the other EU countries to act. That's why you now have some very strange rules in place (like coffeeshops can no longer sell drugs to foreigners).  Fear is that it indeed would hurt tourism, but to be honest I'd prefer tourists that come to Holland because they love the country than to score some drugs.

[saturnine]

While I like what has been said and the type of debate that you have been having, I think an important point is being left out.

Generally, I don't have a problem with people doing drugs as long as it doesn't lead to too many problems. However, concerning legalization, what is missing from this thread is the point that people are going to drive on drugs. PERIOD.

Look at alcohol. Look at the number of accidents that happenn every year, the number of people injured, maimed and killed because of drunk driving. Think of the families that lose people and are devastated. There is no real way to completely stop people from drinking and driving. It goes on in every society no matter the laws. Why would anyone else want to legalize another 'problem' that would make the roads that much more dangerous?

Perhaps the prohibitionists made a mistake and let alcohol be legal while they should have chosen marijuana. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here. Sure, nobody wants to have their liberty to do what they want with their lives infringed upon. But who in their right mind would let another impairing substance into the hands of drivers?

Face it. Impaired driving happens. legalizing anything makes it that much more accepted and accessible for people to drive under its influence. It is truly sad to me that people won't discipline themselves and stop this stupid need to police dangerous drivers.

Now, if we could build a society free of the automobile, as well as the good for the environment, this would be a whole other ballgame.

[pjkeeley]

people are going to drive on drugs. PERIOD.

True, however, there are already laws (at least in this country, I'm not sure about where you are) concerning driving and the use of drugs. In my home state of South Australia, police can now test for the presence of marijuana or amphetamines in saliva when they take breath tests for alcohol. They can also request blood tests for other drugs, and there are penalties similar to drunk driving.

There is no real way to completely stop people from drinking and driving. It goes on in every society no matter the laws. Why would anyone else want to legalize another 'problem' that would make the roads that much more dangerous?

I agree completely with the first two statements. The third relies on the premise that more people would use drugs when driving if they were legal, which you refer to below:

legalizing anything makes it that much more accepted and accessible for people to drive under its influence.

Not if driving under the influence remains illegal. I don't agree with this point, and I would like to hear your basis for this assertion.

Furthermore even if you can prove that significantly more people would use drugs under the influence if they were legal, I would still disagree that this provides sufficient basis for continued prohibition. By all means attempt to prevent motor accidents, but not by outlawing drugs. That only infringes on the rights of the many, unnecessarily, so as to protect us from the idiotic few who put people in danger.

[saturnine]

pjkelley, I am talking about those "idiotic few" throughout most of my previous post. I don't think that most people would make the rational choice to purposely intoxicate themselves on anything and then drive under their influence.

Here in Quebec, Canada there is often talk of legalizing at least marijuana. it has never been done, except for a brief period where it was decriminalized, when after only a few days it was re-criminalized by the courts in following with a higher law.

High level police here seem to agree, as I have read in the papers, that apparentl;y drug testing is not as easy as alcohol testing. I could be wrong, in which case there are laws here that prevent or delay the possibility of police from taking a blood test. Example: they might need to take you to the station to do it or something, I forget exactly what. There was a case where a woman was acquitted of drunk driving because when she was waiting at the police station for a test she pulled out a flask and drank some hard alcohol. Things like this happen.

The third relies on the premise that more people would use drugs when driving if they were legal

I think if you look at the user rate in Holland or Amsterdam, whatever, it is higher than normal. This means that legalization increases use. It also becomes more accepted in the society, as I'm sure it is there. And whenever something like this or alcohol is legal, these "few idiots" again, will abuse this privilege if I can call it that for a moment and overindulge while operating motor vehicles.

That only infringes on the rights of the many, unnecessarily, so as to protect us from the idiotic few who put people in danger.

To play devil's advocate, I think if murder were legalized, few people would do it, but it is justified illegal because of the amount of damage it would do.

New question: So what is the amount of damage that drugs will do? or Is the amount of damage whichever drug you want to legalize low enough so as to legalize it?

[donkeyhoty]

think if you look at the user rate in Holland or Amsterdam, whatever, it is higher than normal

Actually, they have a much lower rate than a lot of countries with regards to pot, and about the same rate for harder drugs.  Then again, their rates should be higher considering it's legal there, but, for some odd reason, they're not.  Maybe it's because pot's not a big deal, and not dangerous unless some authority assigns illicit status to the drug, thus bringing in a criminal element.

In this whole, long, discussion there hasn't been a solid reason, or evidence, given to suggest that pot is a danger to society.  Coke, heroin, meth, yes, but not pot.  The only contentions against pot seem to rest upon the circular reasoning of, "it's bad because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's bad."

[Mister Joy]

I think if you look at the user rate in Holland or Amsterdam, whatever, it is higher than normal. This means that legalization increases use. It also becomes more accepted in the society, as I'm sure it is there. And whenever something like this or alcohol is legal, these "few idiots" again, will abuse this privilege if I can call it that for a moment and overindulge while operating motor vehicles.

Not at all. Ever been to Amsterdam? It isn't a pit of pot-heads, it's a wonderful & prosperous city. You do have to bear in mind how easy it is to purchase marijuana, regardless of the law. It's easier, in fact, for younger teenagers. I think it's far better to make the drug legal, thus taking it completely out of the hands of criminals & enabling sensible restrictions to be placed on its use and marketing (as is the case with cigarettes and alcohol). In the hands of dealers there are no such limitations; anything goes. An illicit market is far more dangerous than a legitimate one.

As an example, when abortion was illegal back in the 60s, it still happened. The only difference was that statistics could not measure it, it was done by criminals demanding disproportionate figures & the situation was made infinitely worse (and this was obvious to everyone except the Roman Catholic church, which insisted that sweeping it under the rug and out of sight could only make things better).

To play devil's advocate, I think if murder were legalized, few people would do it, but it is justified illegal because of the amount of damage it would do.

New question: So what is the amount of damage that drugs will do? or Is the amount of damage whichever drug you want to legalize low enough so as to legalize it?

Maybe with my libertarian mindset I'm unable to see your point here. Murder is illegal because it amounts to one person intentionally killing another (need I say it, without consent ). It can hardly be compared to a guy/gal smoking the odd bit of wacky baccy in the privacy of his/her own home, in the same way that a fellow might have the occasional brandy by the fire on a cold winter night (with a pipe, in a smoking jacket and slippers, just to add to the stereotypical image). If they're doing any damage it's to themselves and the extent of that damage is very speculative. I'm probably doing myself damage right now by sitting in this effing uncomfortable chair. Should I be arrested? Also, they're doing it out of their own choice. Nobody's forcing them.

One further point that you may want to raise is that in systems like yours and mine, with state health care, tax payers are essentially providing for their treatment (on the slim chance that they'd actually need it as a result of their habits). The answer to that is of course a tax on marijuana. That's what we've done with cigarettes, here at least. Excessively actually; revenue from that tax is over 5 times what they spend on smoking related illnesses in the NHS. Can't do harm though; it provides a good source of money to go into public services and so would weed, where it to be made legal.

[SteveS]

Hey saturnine, I'd like to disagree with the following:

To play devil's advocate, I think if murder were legalized, few people would do it, but it is justified illegal because of the amount of damage it would do.

Okay - now, I don't know if this is actually the reason the drug was made illegal, but if it was I say it is bad basis.  Actions should be legal/illegal not based on the amount of harm they will do, but on whether or not those actions infringe upon another person's natural rights.

I say murder is clearly wrong because it is unjust - it is the ultimate transgression of personal rights that can never be reconciled.  Theft can be corrected.  Fraud can be corrected.  Other damages can be settled.  But how can anyone repair the transgression of murder?

A person smoking pot is not violating any of my rights in any way that I can detect.  If an act is not transgressing upon another person's rights, I feel that act cannot possibly be considered criminal.

To me, the laws should govern our personal interactions and protect our personal rights & freedoms.  Murder laws clearly function in this regard; the drug laws do not.

My 2 cents.