Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The war on drugs

ANONYMOUS SAID:

"I know this is off the subject, but I thought I would post a homework assignment that I once had about legalization or at least decriminalization of certain drugs."

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/morality-criminality.html#comments

Some high profile conservatives like Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley have advocated the legalization of drugs.

Ideologically speaking, I'm sympathetic to the argument.

But pragmatically speaking, where this experiment has been attempted it doesn't seem to solve any problems while creating a new set of problems as well as exacerbating the old problems.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

Commenters and team members are welcome to weigh in.

13 comments:

  1. The argument for legalization of drugs is a straightforward libertarian argument: A person makes the decision to use drugs knowing full well that the consequences - both positive and negative - of his choice will accrue to him alone. This argument can be applied to other seemingly private behaviors, like the decision to wear or not wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

    For this argument to be valid, the consequences of a person's actions must accrue to that person alone. There must be no externalities to the person's choice. However, most of these seemingly private behaviors end up with consequences that extend beyond the person making the choice. For example, a drug addict laying in the gutter diminishes the quality of life for all who must step over him. A non-helmet-wearing motorcycle rider who ends up in an accident consumes excessive medical resources. Even if he is insured, he ties up available capacity in the hospital emergency room.

    For drug legalization, even if one acknowledges that there are negative externalities associated with legalization; this does not end the discussion. Currently, with those drugs being illegal there are also negative externalities. Many of the people who lose their lives, who are injured, or who are deprived of property are not users of illegal drugs. These costs all represent negative externalities associated with keeping these drugs illegal.

    In the end I come out against drug legalization because of a fundamental moral change that happens when a society through legalization sanctions mind altering drug use. By legalizing mind altering drugs society is saying that it is all right for a person to attempt to escape from his problems. That is ultimately what must drive a person to consume mind altering drugs: Reality is so unpleasant that the person no longer desires to face reality. Mind altering drugs offer a ready, if temporary, escape.

    But this escape is an illusion. When the effects of the drugs wear off the problems remain. By keeping mind altering drugs illegal society is saying that problems are an unavoidable part of life. Yes, people should order their lives so as to minimize the likelihood of these problems appearing, but even with prudent behavior of this sort, problems happen. As Hobbes said, life on earth is "nasty, solitary, brutish and short." There's something virtuous to facing problems, playing the hand you've been dealt, making the best of it, and not complaining. The legalization of mind altering drugs is antithetical to this virtue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I am on drugs, I am aware of the fact that my experience is an internally-based illusion. And after the drugs wear off, I reflect on that fact. But too many people seem to be unaware of this, or they at least forget it. People forget that these drugs are called hallucinogens for a reason. They make you see things that aren't there!

    When you look through a kaleidoscope for example, you have to remember that those patterns aren't really there; it's an illusion brought about by the lens in the kaleidoscope that distorts your perception.

    So, for the record, I support responsible drug use. And responsible drug use means understanding that you are experiencing drugs, not God, when you are trippin' your ass off.

    http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2006/07/clarification-i-mock-god-not-drugs.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know why people seem to think that marijuana is a 'safe' drug. This has no basis is in facts, science or logic. The 'safeness' of marijuana is an ideological position, an article of faith, that refuses to be shaken by any amount of evidence. Marijuana is a VERY dangerous drug. In the year they banned it in South Carolina 60% of all crime was committed by people high on marijuana. Anyone who thinks marijuana is safe just doesn't know what they're talking about.
    http://povertydebate.typepad.com/addictions/files/cannabis_2006.pdf
    http://www.dpna.org/resources/trends/cannabistruth.htm
    http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/72474.html
    http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=163
    http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/index.php?s=cannabis

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, anonymous is actually Aaron Kinney. Why am I somewhat less than surprised?

    On the legalisation of drugs. The trouble is that most arguments do not look at the production end. I remember once hearing a gent tell me that the legalisation of drugs would help Columbia, et. al. Truth to tell, this is foolishness. Diamonds are legal, yet Sierra Leone and Angola have had enough trouble over them.

    Equally, would it be possible for a gov't to legalise drugs without apparently approving of them. Given the current climate vis-a-vis cigarettes, this would be difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Crime does not pay.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous said...
    "I don't know why people seem to think that marijuana is a 'safe' drug. This has no basis is in facts, science or logic. The 'safeness' of marijuana is an ideological position, an article of faith, that refuses to be shaken by any amount of evidence. Marijuana is a VERY dangerous drug.

    No one said Marijuana is completely safe, but neither is rock climbing.
    The argument above is would it alleviate the justice system and prison system by legalizing it or at least decriminalizing it. It doesn't make sense to give rapists and other violent criminals a "get out of jail free card" so that drug addicts can get in.


    "In the year they banned it in South Carolina 60% of all crime was committed by people high on marijuana."

    Do you have any proof that these individuals were high on marijuana when they committed the crime or was it just in their system? Many criminals abuse all kinds of drugs, I don't know how it could be shown that marijuana caused them to commit the crime. Actually alcohol is what the majority of criminals are on when they commit crime. The studies on drugs and crime really can't show if drugs are the cause of people commiting crime, or if criminals just abuse drugs.

    Also, it must be said that illegal drug sales in this country has been the cause of violent crime. Organized crime takes advantage of this market where the demand is high. Then, the drugs cycle down to small dealers and street gangs. This is the situation that causes violent crime. Sure, decriminalization and legalization is a silver bullet, better education and programs are needed to curb demand for illegal drugs.

    Also, it must be said that prescription medication is being abused probably more than all the other drugs combined.

    "Anyone who thinks marijuana is safe just doesn't know what they're talking about."


    Have you ever smoked marijuana and "inhaled". I'll put it this way, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the wacky weed, I'll just leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon, my boy. Just a few points:

    1. 'Do you have any proof that these individuals were high on marijuana when they committed the crime or was it just in their system?'

    Do you have any evidence they weren't? For a wallah who's prepared to endlessly cite a survey that was slammed by George Gallup for merely looking at two statistics and implying causation from this, you seem somewhat confused.

    2. Prescription drugs are abused more than any other.

    This is why they are available only on prescription, not to anyone who wants to take them. If you favour legalising drugs, I assume this is not for medicinal purposes. Heroin was created as a painkiller. Your point is?

    3.To state that you're an expert on marijuana because you've used it is like my claiming I'm a computer expert just because I've used one.

    There are known nasty mental effects of taking the above drug.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hiraeth said...
    "Do you have any evidence they weren't? For a wallah who's prepared to endlessly cite a survey that was slammed by George Gallup for merely looking at two statistics and implying causation from this, you seem somewhat confused.

    Huah? I never cited any surevey, you must have confused me with another poster. The only thing I did was bring up 'possible' problems with surveys and statistics. It's called critical thinking, maybe you should try it sometime.

    2. Prescription drugs are abused more than any other.

    "This is why they are available only on prescription, not to anyone who wants to take them.

    This was only stated as to show the need for various educational programs to deter people for using drugs, and for medical treatment for those who are already addicted.



    If you favour legalising drugs, I assume this is not for medicinal purposes. Heroin was created as a painkiller. Your point is?'


    I never said I was in favor of legalizing drugs. You need to go back and carefully read the main post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hiraeth said...

    "3.To state that you're an expert on marijuana because you've used it is like my claiming I'm a computer expert just because I've used one."

    That's a stupid analogy. It has nothing to do with my response to anons post.


    "There are known nasty mental effects of taking the above drug."

    You've onviously been watching and believing the mass media over reliable studies. Hey, have you ever watched "Refeer Madness"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Aaron, I have not watched Reefer Madness, but should I have any spare time, I might. I'm told it's funny. And it's a very good example of the sort of silly alarmism that mars any argument.

    Now, some truths: just because the social and/or mental consequences of a thing have been grossly exaggerated for alarmist purposes in the past (see some anti-alcohol stuff), does not mean that there are not actual health risks involved in taking them.

    Lastly, what is a reliable study? Is it one with which one agrees?

    I say this because here in Britain there has been a wave of studies following the decision of the government to re-classify Cannabis from a class B to a Class C drug. These have concluded that Cannabis can cause serious mental harm in a minority of users.

    You state that you are not in favour of the legalisation of drugs. May I ask exactly what you are in favour of? I hope not just not enforcing the existing laws. To have laws of the statute books which are not respected or enforced is to cause men to despise the law. Prohibition is a case in point. The law was not respected at all.

    Now, should the situation regarding drugs approach that of prohibition, I should be in favour of the abolition of the laws regarding drugs, and the passing of new laws regulating the safe sale of them.

    But we are not at that stage yet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh yes, have ordered 'Reefer Madness,' with its sequel 'The Cocaine Fiends.' I anticipate hours of happy chortling.

    Again, and I cannot emphasise this enough. Ridiculous and overblown claims about the effects of drugs on all users are counter-productive. A person takes said drug, realises it doesn't do that, and gives up trying to avoid it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hiraeth said...
    "You state that you are not in favour of the legalisation of drugs. May I ask exactly what you are in favour of? I hope not just not enforcing the existing laws. To have laws of the statute books which are not respected or enforced is to cause men to despise the law.

    Well, when you have such an abundance of laws on the books as we do and of laws not being in porportion to the seriousness or non seriousness of the crime can cause laws to not be enforced. This is the case in many circumstances.

    Now, for big time drug dealers, stiff penalties should apply, but the small timers which are usually dealing in order to provide for thier drug habbit should not be incarcerated but sent to treatment. Unfortunately this type of drug offender is the one that usually get's busted by the authorities and gets sent to an overcrowded prison where he or she usually comes out worse, if they come out at all.





    "Prohibition is a case in point. The law was not respected at all.
    Now, should the situation regarding drugs approach that of prohibition, I should be in favour of the abolition of the laws regarding drugs, and the passing of new laws regulating the safe sale of them."


    This is already the case! Drug laws are not curbing the high demand for drugs. Billions of dollars are spent on illegal drugs every year in the US, and in the process, murders and other violent crime is the result of the huge drug market that is being run by organized crime.

    I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of drugs, but I lean toward legalization of marijuana. As far as decriminalizing other drugs, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what other so called "victimless crimes" should be made legal and regulated. Probably prostitution, but that's a debate for another day.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Green Man said...
    "Crime does not pay."

    Huah, you are wrong about that, just ask the criminal organizations that are based south of the border.

    ReplyDelete