I have finished reading an essay entitled “Poppycock” by Jim Hogshire, and he makes the following statement:
sorry, this is print, so i don’t have a cite. anyway, aside from the poppy issue, i agree with his position on pain relief vs. the State. whaddya think, sirs?
jb
That the State has an obligation to control and regulate the use of potentially dangerous substances which occassionally outweighs the individual’s right to have the freedom to make bad choices.
(Obviously I’m no Liberterian, and that thread was too long for me to get into, but I’d guess these isssues are discussed there too)
The principle applies to the regulation of any medication or recreational drug (herbs count), to mandated immunizations, to seatbelt and helmet laws. The magnitude of the potential danger must be weighed against the onus of limiting freedom of choice, even for those choices that those in power consider poor. The same burden should apply for herbs as factory synthesized medications, as well.
first of all, i outright disagree. Perhaps (perhaps!) you could argue that the State has a right to control and regulate, but an obligation? to whom?
secondly, let’s assume the State does have an obligation (or a right) to curtail the use of potentially dangerous substances. how come that obligation was not exercised for the first 145 years of the U.S. Government? why did opium and marijuana all of a sudden become dangerous substances?
and on an unrelated note, what are the consequences of ceding control of pain and pain relief to the State? if i am in moderate to severe pain (read: tylenol ain’t helping and alleve left the building) and have no health insurance, i could go to jail for controlling my pain myself? the way that people have effectively controlled pain for centuries? y’know, a doob or a cup of opium tea.
jb
The state has an obligation to its populus as a whole and to individual mebers as well, that’s who.
The alternative to the belief that the State has such a responsibility at all is hardline anarchism.
The real question is one of how much potential harm offsets how much infringement of personal choice, not whether or not the state has an obligation to make such judgements. Intelligent debates can be had over specific situations. I tend to lean towards the individual rights side of the spectrum and believe that the potential harm must be quite large to justify limitation of personal rights.
For example, in my mind the potential harm from marijuana does not justify the infringements imposed upon competent adults, let alone the costs of “the drug war.”
Narcotics, including heroin and other opiods, are another story. I’ve had several kids in my nice middle class pediatric practice alone die or have close calls from heroin abuse. I’ve seen plenty of heroin withdrawing babies while in training. It is bad shit man.
Why did certain substances get very tightly regulated and other, more harmful, substances less so? (I think of tobacco as an example of a substance more harmful than marijuana, for example.) I imagine it has a lot to do with factors other than the potential harm of the substance. And society is fluid in its values; the fulcrum for that balance gets moved with the times. But such an historical analysis is beyond my knowledge base.
The alternative to believing that the State has the obligation to protect people from thjemselves is anarchy? How do you go froma “heroin is legal” to “murder is legal”?
Anarchism as a political philosophy does not propose that murder is legal. I’m no expert on it, but you could find some wonderful web sites on it. I also have a poor understanding of the difference between anarchism and liberterianism. To my thumbnail sketch of an understanding both believe that the government should have no role in protecting people from themselves and neither believes that there is no role for government protected people from others. I’m sure that many other posters have a greater understanding and can help out.
Anarchists are the libertarians of the left, roughly speaking.
Anarchism is a stance towards hierarchy in general, such that they are against governmental bureaucracy, but also top-down corporate bureaucracy. Anarchists like cooperatives.
Libertarians believe that the proper scope of government is to protect property rights. Proudhon, the first 19th century anarchist pamphlateer, proclaimed that, “Property is theft”. (He defined property as ownership of the means of production.)
See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=59033
Also, you could start your own thread in GQ on your topic, if you wish.