California or Mexico?

[olyclimber]

+1 one on that brother

[STP]

Talking 'bout drugs, I'm gonna segue this with the Gaza/India threads. Just ignore it.

 

[video:youtube]0GigQ8qAewM

[Reilly]

"anyone who wants to inject themselves with paint thinner, snort drano, gargle lead, crush their junk in a vise...or shoot heroin, snort coke...should be free to do so."

 

That would be fine if they did it in a vacuum but the taxpayer has to pay for their 'freedom' to abuse themselves. Since many of these jewels also have children then we get to pick up the tab for those ruined lives and the havoc they wreak too.

[JayB]

"anyone who wants to inject themselves with paint thinner, snort drano, gargle lead, crush their junk in a vise...or shoot heroin, snort coke...should be free to do so."

 

That would be fine if they did it in a vacuum but the taxpayer has to pay for their 'freedom' to abuse themselves. Since many of these jewels also have children then we get to pick up the tab for those ruined lives and the havoc they wreak too.

 

I definitely agree with your main point, which I think is that the cost of the poor decisions that individuals make within the sphere of personal freedoms that our laws and customs presently allow for inevitably get transferred onto others. The costs that society bears from obesity alone, for example, are pretty staggering.

 

Where I differ from you, I think, is that I don't think that the existence of such costs is a sufficient rationale for granting the state/society the power to restrict a sane adult's freedom to do whatever they wish to do to themselves, in those cases where the scope of any significant harm arising from their actions is confined to their own bodies.

 

Once the social costs associated with preserving such freedoms becomes a pretext for restricting them, there's no longer a substantial barrier to further intrusions by the state on this basis, and the line between limiting costs, and limiting behaviors that the majority finds simply finds distasteful or incomprehensible becomes very poorly defined.

 

As people who routinely, voluntarily assume risks that are often much more grave than those associated with drug use, and whos choices can have wide ranging consequences and costs - it seems to me that we should all be acutely aware of this fact.

[Dechristo]

Talking 'bout drugs, I'm gonna segue this with the Gaza/India threads. Just ignore it.

 

[video:youtube]0GigQ8qAewM

 

"The Jew's soul is always searching for something. If he doesn't find it, he will take drugs or climb mountains."

[prole]

addicts who hopped into their graves with their eyes open

anyone who wants to inject themselves with

adult's freedom to do whatever they wish to do to themselves

 

Good to see that your understanding of addiction is as warped as the rest of your worldview. Consistency is important! BTW, how is the Just Say No campaign coming along anyway?

 

Edited January 22, 2009 by prole

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, I noticed the enlightened 1950's viewpoint there, too. But hey, what does the AMA and the 30 years of research that supports its conclusions know?

[Dechristo]

addicts who hopped into their graves with their eyes open

anyone who wants to inject themselves with

adult's freedom to do whatever they wish to do to themselves

 

Good to see that your understanding of addiction is as warped as the rest of your worldview. Consistency is important! BTW, how is the Just Say No campaign coming along anyway?

 

Notwithstanding the downward spirals that accompany addictions, surely, you're not positing that choices are not made - "I want, but shall I do?"

[prole]

Choices are always made in a context. In the case of addiction, in a context that falls somewhere in a matrix of chemical and psychological dependency. A public health issue. Disparities in rates of addiction across class and racial lines suggest socio-economic context is an important factor as well. A political issue. To suggest that someone snorting Scotchguard in Appalachia is making "a rational choice in a lifestyle marketplace" and that policy should be crafted with this idea as its basis is retarded. Not to mention that it has worked not a single whit. See: Just Say No and Sarah Palin's wildly popular follow-up, Just Don't Fuck.

Edited January 22, 2009 by prole

[ashw_justin]

I can imagine a society in which all drug production, sale, and use is completely unregulated by government. But I can't imagine it in the current one, where so many people seem to lack enough control over their behavior to avoid conscious, self-induced disease through consumption (cigarettes, alcohol, food...).

 

I think it is predictable that a certain large (if not majority) fraction of the population would self-destruct upon exposure to an economically unrestricted recreational drug market. Philosophical considerations aside, this could be a social and humanitarian disaster from which recovery could be long and difficult.

 

You would be essentially asking a population to select out certain social and/or biological suicide traits, that by many observations appear to be highly pervasive, and not to mention highly susceptible to amplification by the efficiencies of modern industry and economics. This is not an experiment to be taken lightly--the consequences of trying to induce such a transformation on philosophical terms rather than on practical ones could be extremely devastating, on a very wide scale.

 

So arguing whether something is a personal liberty or not is too easy. How do you deregulate the drug market in a way that avoids the anticipated negative impacts? For many of the more powerful drugs, the social experiment seems to already fail on the small (illegal) scale. Also keep in mind that there aren't even any commercials for blow and china white on TV yet.

 

ps. marijuana doesn't count--all copouts relating to the chron shall be disregarded

[ashw_justin]

I should also point out the apparent conflict of interest existing between a government that is put in place to serve the greater (aggregate) good of society, and any action it takes that would directly harm that society--for the government's own gain no less.

Obviously that is an oversimplification, but still.

 

Also what about the possible situation in which a government might keep itself in power precisely by promoting costly addiction? Would it be just to essentially enslave a population by taking advantage of their biological weaknesses?

 

another ps.: yes, themes of this post may in some ways conflict with the preceding post. I beg your pardon as these are merely scenarios...

[JayB]

Choices are always made in a context. In the case of addiction, in a context that falls somewhere in a matrix of chemical and psychological dependency. A public health issue. Disparities in rates of addiction across class and racial lines suggest socio-economic context is an important factor as well. A political issue. To suggest that someone snorting Scotchguard in Appalachia is making "a rational choice in a lifestyle marketplace" and that policy should be crafted with this idea as its basis is retarded. Not to mention that it has worked not a single whit. See: Just Say No and Sarah Palin's wildly popular follow-up, Just Don't Fuck.

 

Uh? How does de-criminalizing drug use on the basis that individuals, and not the government or their neighbors, have the final say with regards to what they do to their body, so long as the adverse consequences resulting from those choices are concentrated in the same...relate to the "Just Say NO campaign?" Who, exactly, are you responding to here.

 

Whether an external observer deems a particular action that another sane adult takes with regards to their own body is irrelevant, and doesn't constitute a sufficient basis for outlawing it. From an external point of view, free-soloing El Cap could easily be construed as a much less rational action than snorting cocaine, the result of a compulsion that the climber is powerless to modulate, etc - but I'm not about to concede that the practice should be outlawed, much less criminalized, on that basis. Ditto for an old guy with a heart condition having sex with a 24 year old waitress that he met at the local hooters in his Florida condo, the fatass with high blood pressure downing four dozen donuts and chasing it with an eight pack of red-bulls, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

I can imagine a society in which all drug production, sale, and use is completely unregulated by government. But I can't imagine it in the current one, where so many people seem to lack enough control over their behavior to avoid conscious, self-induced disease through consumption (cigarettes, alcohol, food...).

 

I think it is predictable that a certain large (if not majority) fraction of the population would self-destruct upon exposure to an economically unrestricted recreational drug market. Philosophical considerations aside, this could be a social and humanitarian disaster from which recovery could be long and difficult.

 

You would be essentially asking a population to select out certain social and/or biological suicide traits, that by many observations appear to be highly pervasive, and not to mention highly susceptible to amplification by the efficiencies of modern industry and economics. This is not an experiment to be taken lightly--the consequences of trying to induce such a transformation on philosophical terms rather than on practical ones could be extremely devastating, on a very wide scale.

 

So arguing whether something is a personal liberty or not is too easy. How do you deregulate the drug market in a way that avoids the anticipated negative impacts? For many of the more powerful drugs, the social experiment seems to already fail on the small (illegal) scale. Also keep in mind that there aren't even any commercials for blow and china white on TV yet.

 

ps. marijuana doesn't count--all copouts relating to the chron shall be disregarded

 

-That society existed in the US until roughly the 1920's.

 

-What, in your estimate, are the social costs of the current drug policy in and out of the US, and how do those compare with your estimates of the social costs in a scenario where drug use is legal?

 

-Is the primary determinant of your choice not to smoke crack the illegality of the said activity? How about for everyone else that you know?

 

-What other activities are presently allowed, where the direct adverse consequences are restricted to the individual's own body, that you would like to see outlawed?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The real question for Prole is "Canada or Cuba". I'm still willing to chip in $50 for that one-way ticket for comrade Prole...

[prole]

Your entire argument falls apart when you jettison the premise that the problems of drug use are confined to the users body and the immediate ping-pong ball-shaped Hobbesian force field that surrounds it. But then I can't imagine that you see many communities that are dealing with those problems from the heli-window.

[prole]

The real question for Prole is "Canada or Cuba". I'm still willing to chip in $50 for that one-way ticket for comrade Prole...

 

As hard as it is for you to swallow (why it would be given all the practice you get swallowing, I'm not sure), I'm an American, I live here, I'm not leaving. As long as you live here and we both continue to use this site, you will hear my criticisms. They come from love...and a singular hatred for wasted resources and unrealized potential.

Edited January 22, 2009 by prole

[JayB]

What's interesting to me is that there are folks who simultaneously insist that terminating a pregnancy is an exquisitely personal matter with no ethical or moral dimension beyond personal choice and that any state encroachment on this turf represents a dire intrusion of the state across the boundary of protected personal freedoms, etc - but insist that the consumption of addictive drugs by non-pregnant adults should be outlawed.

 

There's at least a logical consistency in the anti-abortion/anti-drug outlook, and in the pro-abortion/pro-legalization outlook - but it's puzzling when there's such a glaring conflict between the stance on one issue and the other.

 

Prole, Justin, etc - care to explain?

 

 

 

[ashw_justin]

Judging by the nature of your trap-questions I feel like maybe I am not coming across the way I want to...

 

How do we ensure a smooth transition to a drug-liberal society? Or should I take it that your view is that everything will be fine, as long as the government makes no laws bearing on any aspect of drug production, marketing, or use? Should we avoid trying to anticipate how society would react to deregulation? Whatever happens, happens, so be it?

 

Do you think that existing abuses of consumption of substances, legal, semilegal, and illegal, do not suggest a dangerous susceptibility to a possible addiction epidemic, should highly addictive drugs become profoundly more available through economic liberation?

 

How do you make sure? Maybe just start with LA? Would you be willing to wager the fate of a city on your beliefs? Would there be any kind of plan?

[JayB]

Your entire argument falls apart when you jettison the premise that the problems of drug use are confined to the users body and the immediate ping-pong ball-shaped Hobbesian force field that surrounds it. But then I can't imagine that you see many communities that are dealing with those problems from the heli-window.

 

The same is true of smoking, drinking, promiscuity, pornography, obesity, gambling, etc.

 

It's possible to mitigate the social costs of all of the above, and discourage destructive excesses associated with them, without outlawing or criminalizing them. In fact, in just about every case, criminalizing them exacerbates the costs to both the individual and society, rather than reducing it.

 

The fact that there are people who abuse personal freedoms doesn't constitute a sufficient argument for granting the state power to eliminate them. Sorry.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I'm sure tovarish Prole has a 5-year plan to address the problem.

[prole]

What's interesting to me is that there are folks who simultaneously insist that terminating a pregnancy is an exquisitely personal matter with no ethical or moral dimension beyond personal choice and that any state encroachment on this turf represents a dire intrusion of the state across the boundary of protected personal freedoms, etc - but insist that the consumption of addictive drugs by non-pregnant adults should be outlawed.

 

There's at least a logical consistency in the anti-abortion/anti-drug outlook, and in the pro-abortion/pro-legalization outlook - but it's puzzling when there's such a glaring conflict between the stance on one issue and the other.

 

Prole, Justin, etc - care to explain?

 

 

 

Simply because abortion is a case where the effects are limited to an individual's physical body, crack smoking is not.

[prole]

Your entire argument falls apart when you jettison the premise that the problems of drug use are confined to the users body and the immediate ping-pong ball-shaped Hobbesian force field that surrounds it. But then I can't imagine that you see many communities that are dealing with those problems from the heli-window.

 

The same is true of smoking, drinking, promiscuity, pornography, obesity, gambling, etc.

 

It's possible to mitigate the social costs of all of the above, and discourage destructive excesses associated with them, without outlawing or criminalizing them. In fact, in just about every case, criminalizing them exacerbates the costs to both the individual and society, rather than reducing it.

 

The fact that there are people who abuse personal freedoms doesn't constitute a sufficient argument for granting the state power to eliminate them. Sorry.

 

Don't be sorry, I agree that in some cases there are better uses of resources to combat the problems associated with drug use than criminalization. Chiba, yes. Something that might induce you to throw a severed head out of a car doing 90 or turn one into a jibbering vegetable robbing the neighbors at steak-knife point, no. Not sure why this is a problem...

Edited January 22, 2009 by prole

[mkporwit]

Simply because abortion is a case where the effects are limited to an individual's physical body, crack smoking is not.

Even the most pro-abortion people don't view abortion as just a simple physical procedure. There are well-documented psychological repercussions of abortion that frequently manifest themselves. As such, these repercussions reverberate throughout that person's family and community -- people require counseling and treatment, in some cases they are unable to function. Add to this the possibility that what you are doing is terminating an innocent human life and those repercussions become far more grave. To argue that the impact abortion is confined strictly to the physical body of the mother is idiotic.

[ashw_justin]

What's interesting to me is that there are folks who simultaneously insist that terminating a pregnancy is an exquisitely personal matter with no ethical or moral dimension beyond personal choice and that any state encroachment on this turf represents a dire intrusion of the state across the boundary of protected personal freedoms, etc - but insist that the consumption of addictive drugs by non-pregnant adults should be outlawed.

 

There's at least a logical consistency in the anti-abortion/anti-drug outlook, and in the pro-abortion/pro-legalization outlook - but it's puzzling when there's such a glaring conflict between the stance on one issue and the other.

 

Prole, Justin, etc - care to explain?

I think we have this argument before and I think that your philosophical arguments are convincing, particularly with reference to constitutional promises and personal freedom.

 

But it's entirely another issue I think to suggest that a government should rescue its finances by promoting (from a relative perspective) revenue-generating markets that more or less promise to harm its constituency, at least in the short term. I don't think that's the way it should happen, and I don't think that's the way it happened in the case of abortion.

 

Assuming that we are in agreement re: personal freedom, there is the broader question of how to implement the ideal of personal freedom as it pertains to drugs in a humane fashion. It is easier to accept abortion purely as a societal phenomenon given that it appears to be stable and predictable, and the effects on society are far from catastrophic, if even negative.

 

We don't know how a drug liberalized society would behave, and while it is a very romantic concept that many of us agree with in theory, I think that high a level of caution is warranted in regard to trying to make it happen. In any case, the slow legalization that appears to be occurring, as agonizingly slow as it may be, might be the most prudent way to go about it. In the meantime maybe California will figure out how to manage its finances... without performance enhancing drugs. bada bum ching

[JayB]

Judging by the nature of your trap-questions I feel like maybe I am not coming across the way I want to...

 

How do we ensure a smooth transition to a drug-liberal society? Or should I take it that your view is that everything will be fine, as long as the government makes no laws bearing on any aspect of drug production, marketing, or use? Should we avoid trying to anticipate how society would react to deregulation? Whatever happens, happens, so be it?

 

Do you think that existing abuses of consumption of substances, legal, semilegal, and illegal, do not suggest a dangerous susceptibility to a possible addiction epidemic, should highly addictive drugs become profoundly more available through economic liberation?

 

How do you make sure? Maybe just start with LA? Would you be willing to wager the fate of a city on your beliefs? Would there be any kind of plan?

 

It seems like the major unstated premise of your post is that decriminalization = free for all. That's clearly a false dichotomy.

 

There are any number of ways to protect an individual's right to do whatever they will to their bodies, without promoting drug use, and while mitigating the damage that drug users to do themselves and society. Tossing off in your bedroom isn't illegal, but having a tug while standing on top of a float in the town parade is. Smoking and drinking aren't illegal, but there are rules governing where and how you can do so. Etc, etc, etc.

 

I'd combine incremental legalization for possession and private use of mariujana, along with the elimination of incarceration for non-violent drug offenses right off the bat. I'd combine that with expanded public funding for rehab, make it easier to get clean needles, etc and build from there. Once people realized that the world wasn't coming to an end, I'd work on policies that make the production and sale of drugs restricted, but legal, and thereby eliminate the profits that fuel much of the crime and violence associated with the drugs trade - in this country and elsewhere.

 

Yes - I'd gladly bet an entire city, country, world on the success of this approach. There are no cost free options, and legalizing drugs might well mean more addicts - but when you consider the costs of street-crime, organized crime, incarceration, *and* addiction that we currently have, more addicts seems like a bargain. Especially if people who do become addicts have more resources available to them to help them end their addiction.