war on drugs getting bigger?

[archenemy]

At least we'd go down together.

 

 

Wait, did that sound funny?

[sk]

At least we'd go down together.

 

 

Wait, did that sound funny?

funny?? no, that sounds lovely

[AlpineK]

Yow

 

This is way more interesting than Justin's posts.

[archenemy]

And satisfying....

[TREETOAD]

I think someone should get between you two..

[archenemy]

Someone like Sherri.

[JayB]

Ok, I should have said "the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves and thereby to society as a whole." It's not my right to say that someone shouldn't do whatever drugs they want, as long as it doesn't affect me either directly or through negative impacts on the society in which I live. But I am of the opinion that broad legalization of highly potent drugs would lead to mass consumption and addiction, which in turn would negatively effect this society.

 

It's possible that after some tough times, society would eventually learn how to deal with legal drugs. It's also possible that it might be forever changed for the worse. The third and scariest possibility is that those given the legal power and resources to capitalize on the sale of addictive drugs would engineer a whole new population of slave consumers. But hopefully since we learned that lesson with cigarettes, we could figure out a way to legalize drugs while severely restricting their marketability.

 

The overeating phenomenon... proves that some of the most profitable drugs on the market today are high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. Who is to blame for the fast food epidemic? Either careless corporations are to blame for pushing incredibly unhealthy food, or people are just unwilling or unable to think about what goes in their mouths. Or both. What can be done? How about banning the use of public airwaves for food advertizing, for a start. If the information age has taught us anything it's that mind control is easier than it ever has been. If you have the money, people will eat whatever you tell them to. To keep getting the money, you sell them the cheapest shit you can pass off as food (such as highly decorated corn syrup and converted veggie oil). And if you end up as grotesque disease-bag from eating our food 24/7? Whatever, not our fault. We only brainwashed you, and that's legal.

 

Wow. Where to begin? It should suffice to say that every argument that you put forth concerning the potential harm to the rest of society could just as well pertain to food, gambling, unprotected sex, or pretty much any other facet of human behavior that one could imagine.

 

The notion that something as inherently vague and subjective as "harm to the rest of society," as opposed to direct injury to or infringement of the rights of specific individuals should serve as the principle which defines the boundaries of individual liberty - beyond which the state may not cross - is much more frightening in its implications and rife with much greater potential for abuse than any "corporate interest" operating in a market economy could ever hope to exert.

 

What can be done? How about accepting that a society in which people exercise their liberties in a manner which you don't happen to personally approve of - and in the process of which some people harm themselves - is infinitely more resistant to becoming enslaved, subject to wholesale indoctrination, and any other gross abuse of power than a society in which the state is endowed with the power to forcibly "protect" citizens from engaging in activities which - however distasteful, wasteful, or unjustifiably risky others may find them - bring no direct harm to others.

 

 

 

 

[AlpineK]

I'm drinking a cup of tea right now. I hope Justin doesn't nark me out to the man since I'm drinking a dangerous substance that is negativly impacting society.

 

Durring the revolutionary war our team did dump all that nasty tea into the harbor in Boston. Can I say goodbye to my friends and parents Justin?

[ivan]

justin doesn't seem that unreasonable - he seems willing to consider the legalization of pot at least - i'd like to think any reasonable man can be swayed by the logic of an argument - or have i missed some history of bad blood?

[AlpineK]

No bad blood here. I'm just dumbfounded at the desire for heavy governmental control of all our activities.

 

It's one thing to say if you do X the government is going to put you down, but it's totally different to say that the government is going to control all the activities of your life.

[sk]

Someone like Sherri.

i just love how your mind works :moondance:

[ashw_justin]

every argument that you put forth concerning the potential harm to the rest of society could just as well pertain to food, gambling, unprotected sex, or pretty much any other facet of human behavior that one could imagine.

 

No, it does not pertain to those things, until the damage done to society outweighs the philosophical (and administrative) appeal of freedom. You are free to do whatever you want, until it fucks too much with the rest of us. And yes, becoming a drug addict fucks with the rest of us enough that we have laws to discourage that behavior.

 

The hallmark of a respresentative government is that we collectively decide what is okay and what isn't. Excuse me if I misjudge you, but you seem outraged at my suggestion that simply by chosing to live in a society and accept the benefits of its government, you are voluntarily forfeiting your personal freedoms to the will of collective opinion.

 

The notion that something as inherently vague and subjective as "harm to the rest of society," as opposed to direct injury to or infringement of the rights of specific individuals should serve as the principle which defines the boundaries of individual liberty - beyond which the state may not cross - is much more frightening in its implications and rife with much greater potential for abuse than any "corporate interest" operating in a market economy could ever hope to exert.

 

No, "harm to the rest of society," consists of injury to or infringement of the rights of specific individuals. Otherwise, how is there any harm?

 

What can be done? How about accepting that a society in which people exercise their liberties in a manner which you don't happen to personally approve of - and in the process of which some people harm themselves - is infinitely more resistant to becoming enslaved, subject to wholesale indoctrination, and any other gross abuse of power than a society in which the state is endowed with the power to forcibly "protect" citizens from engaging in activities which - however distasteful, wasteful, or unjustifiably risky others may find them - bring no direct harm to others.

 

That's a good argument but it's a strawman. I've already said that if there is no harm to others, then I have no right to object:

 

It's not my right to say that someone shouldn't do whatever drugs they want, as long as it doesn't affect me either directly or through negative impacts on the society in which I live.

 

I am not the enemy that you find convenient to imagine.

[JosephH]

The war on drugs is definitely larger - Afgan opium production is up 400% compared to the year before the invasion. Go team...!

[ashw_justin]

No bad blood here. I'm just dumbfounded at the desire for heavy governmental control of all our activities.

 

It's one thing to say if you do X the government is going to put you down, but it's totally different to say that the government is going to control all the activities of your life.

 

Oh stop. You must be getting this from one of JayB's posts. Just because he conjures this scary scenario doesn't mean that I proposed it. I mean, I'm not blaming him for corporate crime, am I?

[JayB]

"The hallmark of a respresentative government is that we collectively decide what is okay and what isn't. Excuse me if I misjudge you, but you seem outraged at my suggestion that simply by chosing to live in a society and accept the benefits of its government, you are voluntarily forfeiting your personal freedoms to the will of collective opinion."

 

"No, it does not pertain to those things, until the damage done to society outweighs the philosophical (and administrative) appeal of freedom. You are free to do whatever you want, until it fucks too much with the rest of us. And yes, becoming a drug addict fucks with the rest of us enough that we have laws to discourage that behavior."

 

And..

 

"No, "harm to the rest of society," consists of injury to or infringement of the rights of specific individuals. Otherwise, how is there any harm?"

 

Are conflicting statements that cannot be reconciled with one another when it comes to the manner in which people treat their own bodies.

 

With regards to the first statement, are you channeling Robespierre here? The primary benefit of our government is the specific boundaries that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights draws around a set of personal freedoms which are not and should never be subject to "the will of collective opinion." Even in those realms where the law stipulates that "the will of collective opinion matters," it's filtered through and limited by the various branches of government, and ultimately it's constitutional legitimacy - not any popular will - that matters.

 

And finally, are all people who use illegal drugs addicts? I think the evidence suggests otherwise. There are laws to protect others from the specific harm that any other individual - addict, madman, sociopath, etc - may commit, so there are already mechanisms for addressing any specific harm that they may cause others.

 

Overeating leads to obesity which has massive costs for society, unprotected sex leads to the transmission of a litany of diseases which the public will have to pay the treatment of - etc. There are a million private behaviors which, while not directly harming anyone else, have public consequences. Your contention that drug use is unique in this respect, and that laws that criminalize drug use rely on arguments that couldn't also be applied to other private behaviors is just plain wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ashw_justin]

"The hallmark of a respresentative government is that we collectively decide what is okay and what isn't. Excuse me if I misjudge you, but you seem outraged at my suggestion that simply by chosing to live in a society and accept the benefits of its government, you are voluntarily forfeiting your personal freedoms to the will of collective opinion."

 

"No, it does not pertain to those things, until the damage done to society outweighs the philosophical (and administrative) appeal of freedom. You are free to do whatever you want, until it fucks too much with the rest of us. And yes, becoming a drug addict fucks with the rest of us enough that we have laws to discourage that behavior."

 

And..

 

"No, "harm to the rest of society," consists of injury to or infringement of the rights of specific individuals. Otherwise, how is there any harm?"

 

Are conflicting statements that cannot be reconciled with one another when it comes to the manner in which people treat their own bodies.

 

They are in conflict only if you assume that no manner of treating one's body can cause harm to another individual or collection of individuals. Hypothetically, if half of the population succumbed to heroin addiction, then the rest of us would be fucked because society would collapse. You argue that this is impossible. I argue that it is merely unlikely.

 

With regards to the first statement, are you channeling Robespierre here? The primary benefit of our government is the specific boundaries that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights draws around a set of personal freedoms which are not and should never be subject to "the will of collective opinion." Even in those realms where the law stipulates that "the will of collective opinion matters," it's filtered through and limited by the various branches of government, and ultimately it's constitutional legitimacy - not any popular will - that matters.

 

I'll be the first to agree that public opinion is held in contempt by many in power, and sometimes even rightly. But it is the opportunity to participate in ones own government that keeps a 'democratic' society running. Our code of laws are maleable, and as long as we live in a representative government, subject to public opinion at the very least to the extent that we vote for our lawmakers. We are not governed completely by the commandments of an original and unchanging US Constitution; if that were true, swap the Bible for the Constitution and that's a theocracy.

 

However, if you want to view things in terms of constitutional rights, I argue that at which point the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of enough people are threatened by a particular behavior (such as hardcore drug addiction), then the society (defined by its citizens) can, will, and should take steps to protect itself. And you really have been arguing against a truism: that a society will govern itself by what it decides to be in its best interests.

 

So far, we have decided that what's best for us is to stick as much as possible to the US Constitution. If however, hypothetically, the US Constitution were used as an excuse for "free" behaviors that destroyed the very society upholding it, then the Constitution would have dramatically failed us. You could argue that our constitutional rights should protect against that possibility though, and that is in fact exactly what I am saying: that as long as the behavior of others doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, then there is no threat to society.

 

And finally, are all people who use illegal drugs addicts? I think the evidence suggests otherwise. There are laws to protect others from the specific harm that any other individual - addict, madman, sociopath, etc - may commit, so there are already mechanisms for addressing any specific harm that they may cause others.

 

Overeating leads to obesity which has massive costs for society, unprotected sex leads to the transmission of a litany of diseases which the public will have to pay the treatment of - etc. There are a million private behaviors which, while not directly harming anyone else, have public consequences. Your contention that drug use is unique in this respect, and that laws that criminalize drug use rely on arguments that couldn't also be applied to other private behaviors is just plain wrong.

 

You're right that would be wrong. But I never said that drug use is unique in that respect, rather that since the public consequences of certain drug use seem to be far more potent, that these drugs are justifiably outlawed. There is also an issue of scale involved; we don't know how many people would be using potent addictive drugs if they were legal, and we don't know what the effects on society would be if as many people were doing these drugs as are participating in the other activities you mention. A threat to society has been inferred, based upon a small number of users demonstrating a burden on society due at least in part to their drug use. Don't ask me to defend that inferrence though, since it is obviously shakey.

 

Finally, in case I haven't essentially said as much already, I would have no problem with the idea of trying to decriminalize all drugs without, in my apparently ominous words, adversely 'harming society.' Perhaps it is worth a shot but that should be a careful experiment. How do you manage the market for them? I think that people have a hard enough time figuring out what chemicals to put in their bodies, even without ravenous salespeople doing their best to coax them into buying their drugs. (Such as has been seen for alcohol, cigarettes, and of course many other kinds of less threatening consumables.)

[tvashtarkatena]

every argument that you put forth concerning the potential harm to the rest of society could just as well pertain to food, gambling, unprotected sex, or pretty much any other facet of human behavior that one could imagine.

 

No, it does not pertain to those things, until the damage done to society outweighs the philosophical (and administrative) appeal of freedom. You are free to do whatever you want, until it fucks too much with the rest of us. And yes, becoming a drug addict fucks with the rest of us enough that we have laws to discourage that behavior.

 

That is apparently not how our society works, considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of drug related deaths; disease, accident, and violence, are due to alcohol. In contrast, there are a few tens of overdose deaths due cocaine and herion; drugs which draw a particularly harsh, and in many states, mandatory, sentencing. The harm to society of these 'hard' drugs isn't even on our criminal radar screen, yet half off all prison inmates, and that would be about a million people, are incarcerated for non violent drug related offenses. Study after study has shown that these folks come our of prison harder criminals than they went in. I would say THAT is a pretty large burden on our society.

 

To further debunk your argument for criminalization of drugs; heroin and cocaine were legal readily available, over the counter and from doctors, in the U.S. for many decades. Their use peaked in the 1920s. Criminalization did not curb the rising trend of addiction; a public information campaign on the negative health impacts did.

The hallmark of a respresentative government is that we collectively decide what is okay and what isn't. Excuse me if I misjudge you, but you seem outraged at my suggestion that simply by chosing to live in a society and accept the benefits of its government, you are voluntarily forfeiting your personal freedoms to the will of collective opinion.

 

Again, this is neither the main point nor representative of the values of our society. We do not live under the 'tyranny of the majority'; that's why we have a Bill of Rights to protect us from exactly that.

 

It's not my right to say that someone shouldn't do whatever drugs they want, as long as it doesn't affect me either directly or through negative impacts on the society in which I live.

 

This 'island man' statement is so ludicrous it requires no reply.

 

Drug addiction is a disease of the brain. You don't treat a disease with prison time. There are a whole raft of new, effective drugs coming out that will help people regain lives broken by addiction, thanks to advances in brain imaging and other technologies.

 

If you commit a crime, on or off drugs, great. Prosecution is in order. We already have laws for that. Prosecution for possessing or taking a substance, in itself, is a gross violation of personal freedom, as well as being an expensive, counterproductive, and ineffective way to deal with the issue. If you take or are addicted to drugs and do not commit crimes against others, the state should have no interest other than to provide health information and programs to allow those who wish to a way get out of the downward spiral.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ashw_justin]

considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of drug related deaths; disease, accident, and violence, are due to alcohol. In contrast, there are a few tens of overdose deaths due cocaine and herion;

 

Again, this is a false comparison because alcohol is legal, aggressively marketed, and widely consumed. If we should expect similar results assuming cocaine and heroin are legalized, then I am completely justified in raising the concerns that I have.

 

drugs which draw a particularly harsh, and in many states, mandatory, sentencing. The harm to society of these 'hard' drugs isn't even on our criminal radar screen, yet half off all prison inmates, and that would be about a million people, are incarcerated for non violent drug related offenses. Study after study has shown that these folks come our of prison harder criminals than they went in. I would say THAT is a pretty large burden on our society.

 

To further debunk your argument for criminalization of drugs;

 

No argument here. I just got done saying that decriminalization is a good idea in theory, and this is definitely a major reason.

 

The hallmark of a respresentative government is that we collectively decide what is okay and what isn't. Excuse me if I misjudge you, but you seem outraged at my suggestion that simply by chosing to live in a society and accept the benefits of its government, you are voluntarily forfeiting your personal freedoms to the will of collective opinion.

Again, this is neither the main point nor representative of the values of our society. We do not live under the 'tyranny of the majority'; that's why we have a Bill of Rights to protect us from exactly that.

 

My point was not to tout a tyranny of the majority. My point was that simply by living under any society with other human beings, your freedoms and rights become limited to those which will not interfere with the freedoms and rights of others. Exactly which freedoms are limited and how is up that society to decide for itself. Living in the U.S. means you sacrifice certain freedoms; at this point one of those is the freedom to use certain drugs legally. However luckily for those who disagree, that is subject to change, precisely because we live in a society where freedom and rights are up for debate.

 

It's not my right to say that someone shouldn't do whatever drugs they want, as long as it doesn't affect me either directly or through negative impacts on the society in which I live.

This 'island man' statement is so ludicrous it requires no reply.

 

Good. It wasn't meant for you and is taken out of context. It was meant for JayB and others, who have vilified me for suggesting that I should care about what others do to themselves. In fact it constitutes the crux of the arguments against mine: that what someone does to themselves is their business, and their business alone. My response is that even if I'm supposed to mind my own business, it becomes my business once it begins to negatively affect my society.

 

Drug addiction is a disease of the brain. You don't treat a disease with prison time. There are a whole raft of new, effective drugs coming out that will help people regain lives broken by addiction, thanks to advances in brain imaging and other technologies.

 

Yeah, but I'm not sure that more 'good' drugs are the answer. I think the bottom line is that human beings are socially and psychologically susceptible to using addictive drugs, and that this problem won't be solved until we as a society learn better.

 

I'll concede (already have) that decriminalization in favor of personal responsibility is the ultimate solution. At this point I'm just questioning how we can get to that point without things getting very ugly. Simply assuming that freedom of choice will solve all problems, a sentiment that underlies many such arguments against government control, may be a critical underestimation of the potential risks.

 

If you commit a crime, on or off drugs, great. Prosecution is in order. We already have laws for that. Prosecution for possessing or taking a substance, in itself, is a gross violation of personal freedom, as well as being an expensive, counterproductive, and ineffective way to deal with the issue. If you take or are addicted to drugs and do not commit crimes against others, the state should have no interest other than to provide health information and programs to allow those who wish to a way get out of the downward spiral.

 

Yes, I agree that this is how it should work, although it presents a serious risk should the downward spiral take hold of too many people at once, and/or if it becomes a market phenomenon that makes the alcohol industry seem like the Red Cross.

[ivan]

ahhh - you can alwasy count on a drug-thread to get to at least 5 pages!

 

so jah, justin doesn't seem to be disagreeing that much w/ anyboyd - he's for decriminalization, a first step i'll settle for. where are the ultra-crazy fucks in this thread? have they floated off to join a pro-life rally or something?

 

consumption of alcohol didn't seem to radically change before, during or after prohibition so i'd assume it'll be pretty similiar for the other drugs - social pressures, not legal ones, do the most to constrain our drug habits

[archenemy]

 

consumption of alcohol didn't seem to radically change before, during or after prohibition so i'd assume it'll be pretty similiar for the other drugs - social pressures, not legal ones, do the most to constrain our drug habits

 

That's b/c the consumption and possession of alcohol was not illegal under prohibition laws.

[archenemy]

Wait a minute, the more I think about your statement the more I realize you may not have read a lot about this period in history.

 

Alcohol sales were taken over by organized crime at this time, which was unanticipated by our government. These folks became fabulously weathy and soon were admired by regular folk. People who bootlegged or ran blind pigs were also sympathized with. As social mores loosened up in general (it was, after all, the roaring twenties) alcohol consumption became more socially acceptable. If there is one time in our history when social pressures did not contrain drug/alcohol habits, it was this time.

[ivan]

 

consumption of alcohol didn't seem to radically change before, during or after prohibition so i'd assume it'll be pretty similiar for the other drugs - social pressures, not legal ones, do the most to constrain our drug habits

 

That's b/c the consumption and possession of alcohol was not illegal under prohibition laws.

so you think, if the volstead act had been written differently, fewer folks would have been drinking if the g-men were busting both the speak-easy owners AND customers? yeah - not much i'd bet. and if it had, prohibition would have died even faster

[archenemy]

So I think what?

The V-act didn't outlaw the consumption of alcohol (which is what you were talking about in the first place)

 

"no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act.”

 

It did not specifically prohibit the purchase or use of intoxicating liquors.

 

this act is not what impacted the death of prohibition; it was the social changes going on at the time that rose up in reaction to the orginal pressures that caused Prohibition to come around. This pendulum seems to always occur in societies with many topics. We just can't seem to find the balance and stick with it.

[ivan]

If there is one time in our history when social pressures did not contrain drug/alcohol habits, it was this time.

i didn't say social pressures always work to prevent us from indulging in drug use - of course they can promote it to. the usa has shown a long and predictable series of social fluctuations, mostly revolving around the holy-rollers getting their jesus-on after periods of binging - the volstead act was a legal flowering of that social trend towards fundementalism in the 1920s that also gave us the scopes-monkey trial. as one part of society got religion-crazy, another part moved exactly away from it (and were probably pretty pissed that their booze couldn't come along for the ride)

[archenemy]

And just for clarity, the Prohibition law:

 

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.