Illegal drugs

[pjkeeley]

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?

At the very least, marijuana, ecstasy and hallucinogens should be decriminalised. These are non-addictive, comparitively harmless or 'soft' recreational drugs. However, throughout this thread I have been arguing for the decriminalisaton of ALL drugs, and, as I have argued, the amount of damage they do is irrelevent. Drugs harm people in a variety of ways, but the choice to expose ourselves to that harm should be left to us, in my opinion. That goes even for truly terrible drugs such as heroin.

The only argument I can accept for keeping drugs illegal is the notion that people on drugs might harm other people (whether through neglect, such as in motor accidents, or through violent crime). However, as I have argued in previous posts, this argument is flawed because it implies that more people would use drugs if they were legal, which is contestable. Ultimately, a crime committed on a drug is still a crime, and the guilty party is still the user, not the drug.

[SteveS]

Ultimately, a crime committed on a drug is still a crime, and the guilty party is still the user, not the drug.

This is an important point (and one with which I agree).  Decriminalizing drugs will be worthless if we don't stick to our guns on personal responsibility.  It would be senseless, for example, to say "heroin is legal" but to also say "he's not responsible for his actions since he was wasted on heroin at the time".

[McQ]

Ultimately, a crime committed on a drug is still a crime, and the guilty party is still the user, not the drug.

This is an important point (and one with which I agree).  Decriminalizing drugs will be worthless if we don't stick to our guns on personal responsibility.  It would be senseless, for example, to say "heroin is legal" but to also say "he's not responsible for his actions since he was wasted on heroin at the time".

Ditto to this and to pj on the subject.

[Justice]

<b>Drug-induced Psychosis up 400% in Australia</b>

A new study out of Australia's National Drug and Alcohol Research Center has found that during the past decade there has been a 400% increase in the number of people treated for drug-induced psychosis (psychosis is a medical term for loss of touch with reality; a key symptom of schizophrenia). In 1994, there were 55.5 cases per million people, rising to 253 per million by 2004 says the report, published in the Medical Journal of Australia.

The report suggests that the largest increase has been among amphetamine users. A Royal Perth Hospital study also published in the journal found more than one in every 100 emergency department patients was being treated for a problem related to amphetamine use, which included ice, ecstasy and speed.

This had a "major impact" on the functioning of the department. "Patients with acute amphetamine intoxication are often agitated and aggressive, require extensive resources such as sedation and frequently re-attend," the report says.

"With increasing availability and use of amphetamines, the burden on emergency services will continue to grow."

"The police are maxed out on trying to reduce the supply and almost no effort is going into trying to reduce the demands," he said. "The reason why these drugs are illegal is because they're dangerous to your health".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems to me that you want to hold the drug user accountable for their behavior <i>after</i> they became psychotic, but not for the decision they made whilst sane to ingest a dangerous substance!

Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB. Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

We can debate which drugs are dangerous and which are not. You have convincingly argued that the dangers of certain drugs are exagerrated. But I still think that you have failed to make the case that blanket legalization of controlled substances is a good idea.

Also, I think that you minimize the risks associated with certain drugs, particularly for those with pre-existing health conditions. [Imagine, if you will, a person with bipolar disorder on ampthetamines or a schizophrenic on LSD. And then remember that not everyone with those conditions is aware they have them.]

[rlrose328]

Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB. Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

That is my bottom line as well... well-said, Justice.

[SteveS]

Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB.

I certainly agree with this --- you would then be unjustifiably endangering other people's rights --- so no problem here.

Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

If "radically altering your behavior" will truly result in causing you to "pose a threat to others", then I certainly agree with this as well.  Same as taking a perfectly legal substance (like alcohol) and then attempting to fly a jetliner with 160 paying passengers riding in back.  This would also be wrong.  But how does the legality of the substance change this argument?

It seems to me that you want to hold the drug user accountable for their behavior after they became psychotic, but not for the decision they made whilst sane to ingest a dangerous substance!

Justice - for my part, I hold the drug user accountable for ALL of their behavior.  In other words, they can't (in my mind) dodge responsibility for their acts by claiming "I was high/stoned/drunk/whatever at the time and therefore cannot be held accountable".  This is a bunk argument.  I certainly never intended to portray that the pre-intoxicated drug consumption choice was free and clear of any responsibility.  Nor can I detect any part of this discussion where this interpretation was portrayed!  I think this statement was made against a view that was never put forth.

I want to be very clear that my entire opposition to drug illegality has been based around the idea that to me my own life and my own health are mine.  They are owned by me.  This does not, in any way, relieve me of any personal responsibility toward other people.  Either in choosing to take a (truly) dangerous substance or in how I behave after becoming intoxicated.

[Justice]

- Alcohol is dangerous and alcohol is legal.
- Therefore, it is acceptable for other dangerous substances to be legal.

It is a very poor argument, IMO. Firstly, as I have pointed out before, alcohol is a food, not a drug only. Secondly, drunkenness is not analogous to psychosis. Thirdly, it is an argument for foolish consistency; after all, maybe alcohol should be illegal too.

In some ways, your argument reminds me of the movie "Minority Report." You are saying that you have not yet committed a crime, so why are you being punished in anticipation of what <i>might</i> happen?

But dangerous behavior can be a crime regardless of whether anyone is actually victimized. For example, if you drive erratically, you can be cited for reckless driving, even if no one was injured and you thought you were in complete control. Do we have to wait until you run over a child before we object?

I understand with your point of view. And to a certain degree I sympathize with it...I just think it is unrealistic.

Why do we need laws at all if we can rely on everyone to take personal responsibility for their behavior?

[SteveS]

- Alcohol is dangerous and alcohol is legal.
- Therefore, it is acceptable for other dangerous substances to be legal.

This is not actually my argument.  If we're going to paraphrase each other in this manner, could I not represent your argument as:

-An item that could be used dangerously allows for the possibility for a person to harm another person using the item
-All potentially harmful items should therefore be illegal

So - let's make rocks, pointy sticks, long fingernails, fists, screwdrivers, crowbars, hammers, etc. etc. etc. all illegal.  Afterall, a simple box-cutter was used to hijack an airplane and turn it into a missile killing thousands in the end count.  So box-cutters should be illegal right?  No brainer.

Justice, I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm just trying to point out that I think you've oversimplified my opinion and turned it into a poor argument, the same as I would be doing if I actually presented my above paraphrase to you as a counter-argument (my above hypothetical counter-argument is entirely sarcastic).

My actual argument is that the mere fact that something could be harmful is not a good reason to "ban" it.  Otherwise, just take a look around: you are surrounded by potentially dangerous and harmful items in your regular life - indeed, even in the "natural world".

About the "Minority Report" comparison....

You are saying that you have not yet committed a crime, so why are you being punished in anticipation of what might happen?

Yes.  And, if I have not committed a crime, then what would you be punishing me for?

You continued your thought with...

But dangerous behavior can be a crime regardless of whether anyone is actually victimized. For example, if you drive erratically, you can be cited for reckless driving, even if no one was injured and you thought you were in complete control. Do we have to wait until you run over a child before we object?

I agree with this part completely.  And I say no, we don't have to wait until I run over a child to object.  

Its just that I don't view usage of most currently illegal recreational drugs as being equivalent to "reckless driving".  Is playing golf reckless endangerment?  I don't think so.  And yet, it is entirely possible to miss-hit a ball (this is "probable" in my personal case  :wink:  ) that ends up striking somebody in the head and killing them.  All our actions encompass risk to some degree.  We have to determine what is reasonable and what is not.

It has been my personal experience that I don't feel I've ever been put at undue risk because a person in my vicinity was smoking pot or taking happy pills or eating mushrooms.  I think I probably have been put at risk by somebody driving their car near mine while they were far too drunk to be driving it safely.  I try to reconcile my experience with the laws and they don't make sense.  I don't think outlawing alcohol is the right answer to this problem, just as outlawing most of these illegal drugs is not the right answer.  I think responsible use is.  Not what you're using, but how you're using it.

If you can make the case (you may well be able to) that a particular drug represents a total lack of control to the imbiber and induces violent urges or tendencies, then I would agree that no rationally minded individual could take that drug responsibly.  If they cannot, then there seems to be no valid argument (according to my view here) that that particular drug should be legal to use.  My view is based on the idea that a person could take a drug without it infringing upon anybody else's rights.  We can term this "responsible use".  If there can be no responsible use for a drug then I agree with your view about that drug.

But - I don't think the majority of these currently illegal substances fit this bill.  I am certainly willing to accept that some of them may.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise on this topic would be that only some of the currently outlawed substances should remain outlawed, while some should be legalized?  In other words no blanket decriminalization, no blanket criminalization?

Why do we need laws at all if we can rely on everyone to take personal responsibility for their behavior?

Why indeed?  :wink:

[McQ]

Funny thing, Steve....I was about to mention that I thought I saw a straw man coming out in this last post by Justice.

Yeah, you've got to stick to the actual points made by someone, Justice, not a misrepresentation of what they said. Discussions are much more fruitful then.

But who's keeping track. Let's just all go have a beer.  :wink:

[SteveS]

Let's just all go have a beer.

Sounds like a plan I can get behind....

As long as nobody outlaws alcohol  (  :wink:  )

[Justice]

Steve, I was not trying to simplify your entire argument. I was merely pointing out that it should not revolve on whether or not alcohol is illegal; similar to your golf analogy, in fact. When I wrote it, I had an inkling that it did not look right, but I was really tired. Sorry.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise on this topic would be that only some of the currently outlawed substances should remain outlawed, while some should be legalized? In other words no blanket decriminalization, no blanket criminalization?

I am with you there. Like I said before, we agree more than we disagree. In fact, I am curious about your libertarian views, but that is for another thread.

[SteveS]

Justice - no need to apologize, I wasn't upset or angry in any way with the response.  Fundamentally, I agree with your comparison to alcohol in that the fact that alcohol is legal would not necessarily mean that blanket legalization of all potentially harmful substances should follow suit.  But, I do think the majority of alcohol policy is rational.  Legal to possess and consume, illegal to drive while intoxicated, work while intoxicated, etc. etc.  I have my issues with some of our alcohol policies (age limit being a big one), but by and large they mostly make good sense to me.  I do think at least some of the currently outlawed substances could work very well in a similar sandbox.  The benefit would be in increased personal freedoms - which I'm all about (even if I don't personally choose to exercise them).

Like I said before, we agree more than we disagree.

This is certainly true in the "usage" arena.  Even if all these substances were legalized tomorrow I can't see myself shooting up with heroin or taking meth.  To be completely honest, I don't even envision myself trying marijuana - I just don't have any interest in it.  I do have an interest in seeing people not fired from their job for a random blood test that shows marijuana use, or not thrown in jail for possession of a reefer.  To me these actions are unwarranted, counterproductive and unjust.

[flo1989]

Marijuana is only slightly more harmful than cigarettes, so I can see legalizing it

The amount of harm marijuana can allegedly do varies from source to source a great deal. It's one of these you-can't-trust-anyone scenarios. Weed is sometimes said to contain 4 times as many carcinogens as tobacco, sometimes 8, however THC - the actual drug in the stuff - is supposed to reduce your chances of getting cancer, according to some. It all contradicts itself and makes no sense & I can make a few guesses as to why that is.

hmm true.
Bob Marley did supposedly die of foot cancer but that could also have been caused from the Tobacco in the joints

And yes sometimes they say it contains 5 times as many etc. (varies)
I personally believe the amount is reduced seeing as we are consuming less tobacco (the weed does need some space) but we are taking different substances.
Now the THC is not actually physically harmful, although that is disputable.
What I mean is the other substances in the weed...I personally don't know what they are, and thus don't know their effects on our lungs...then again it is organic (unlike eg. LSD)

[Big Mac]

We must look at it from a few angles.

I follow Penn and Teller's philosophy: People are free to do what they want to themselves (not others) and also be free to handle the consequences.

For too long we have become a Nanny State. Don't eat that, don't drink that, don't watch that, don't read that.

Last time I checked, I didn't live with my mother.

I say we legalize it all and see what happens. Those who are too weak to control their addictive nature will go away. Not to sound cruel, but we really shouldn't be focusing on helping everyone. If people ingest meth as grown-ups then they can face the consequences as grown-ups.

[pjkeeley]

Drug-induced Psychosis up 400% in Australia

A new study out of Australia's National Drug and Alcohol Research Center has found that during the past decade there has been a 400% increase in the number of people treated for drug-induced psychosis (psychosis is a medical term for loss of touch with reality; a key symptom of schizophrenia). In 1994, there were 55.5 cases per million people, rising to 253 per million by 2004 says the report, published in the Medical Journal of Australia.

The report suggests that the largest increase has been among amphetamine users. A Royal Perth Hospital study also published in the journal found more than one in every 100 emergency department patients was being treated for a problem related to amphetamine use, which included ice, ecstasy and speed.

This had a "major impact" on the functioning of the department. "Patients with acute amphetamine intoxication are often agitated and aggressive, require extensive resources such as sedation and frequently re-attend," the report says.

"With increasing availability and use of amphetamines, the burden on emergency services will continue to grow."

"The police are maxed out on trying to reduce the supply and almost no effort is going into trying to reduce the demands," he said. "The reason why these drugs are illegal is because they're dangerous to your health".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems to me that you want to hold the drug user accountable for their behavior after they became psychotic, but not for the decision they made whilst sane to ingest a dangerous substance!

Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB. Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

We can debate which drugs are dangerous and which are not. You have convincingly argued that the dangers of certain drugs are exagerrated. But I still think that you have failed to make the case that blanket legalization of controlled substances is a good idea.

Also, I think that you minimize the risks associated with certain drugs, particularly for those with pre-existing health conditions. [Imagine, if you will, a person with bipolar disorder on ampthetamines or a schizophrenic on LSD. And then remember that not everyone with those conditions is aware they have them.]

The problem I have with your argument Justice is one I have repeatedly addressed in my posts. It's that it hinges on the idea that more people will take drugs if they are made legal.

To elaborate: you refer to information which states a link between drug use and psychosis. We should find that link alarming, precisely because there are people in society at this very moment who will become victims of psychosis as a result of their drug use. That is why the information exists at all. So if these people are then prone to commit acts of violence or do anything that would violate another person's rights, these actions must therefore already be occuring, and whether drugs are made legal or not would only have an effect on how often such actions occur if it were the case that legalising drugs could be shown to result in an increase in the number of people using them (and hence becoming psychotic).

All well and good then to show me links between psychosis and drug use, but if you want that information to support your argument (that pyschotic individuals will endanger the rest of us) you will have to show me evidence that the current legal status of drugs is a factor in preventing that danger (presumably by reducing the number of drug induced psychoses). Show me figures relating to the connecton between crime and drug induced psychosis therefore, and not merely the fact that psychosis can result. The same goes for your argument earlier in this topic that people under the intoxication of a drug can be dangerous: show me that this is true, and then show me evidence that this danger will become worse if drugs were made legal, and I will accept your claims.

Also worth noting is the fact that the number of people who incur mental illness as a result of drug use is a very small minority of the population. They are unlucky and it's very unfortunate that it does happen. The rest of us however should not be prevented from choosing whether or not to use drugs simply in order to protect them (which prohibition fails to do anyway, since people everywhere still use drugs despite their illegality, as I alluded to above).

I still think that you have failed to make the case that blanket legalization of controlled substances is a good idea.

Indeed, I am always hard pressed to do so, and in any case I don't really intend to. I am not interested so much in making people believe that legalisation is a good idea, since most people are uninterested in the prospect of using drugs and so it is not a potential freedom that they value very highly. What I am interested in doing instead is showing them that prohibition is a bad idea. It's expensive, it's invasive of our privacy and liberty, and it serves almost no useful function, since people use drugs regardless or their illegality, and are simply made to feel like criminals and deviants for no good reason. Once people realise this they ought to think about reforming drug laws, regardless of whether it is in their own interest or not.