is this a democracy? (a drug debate)

Great Debates
41

I wouldn’t disfavor the idea of legalizing illegal (or recreational) drugs if the drug users could be held accountable for the costs and consequences of their drug use. In essence, what negative effects could drug use have upon the individual, business, and society be transferred as an expense to the recreational drug user. I’ll lay out some possible points of liability, but by no means a complete laundry list…

Individual: The first thing that comes to mind is an increased risk to an individual’s health as a result of taking recreational drugs. If John Doe smokes crack, shoots smacks, or tokes pot, then he’ll probably have increased health risks and potential complications moreso than Jane Doe who has no recreational drug habit. John would have to incur the additional costs of health insurance much in the same way that smokers have to pay more.

Business: It is quite possible the drug users would be an increased risk to default on loans over non-drug user: i.e., if John Doe was presented with the choice of buying his weekly fix or paying on his car note, he’ll may have an increased likelihood of skipping payments to support his drug habit, so it might be necessary to give drug users I higher interest rate over non-drug users. Mortgage companies could decide that the risk is too high and deny loans for home ownership. (I have no actual evidence that drug users would skip payments more than non-users, but it is possible, and I’d let insurance and lending companies make the final call).

Employers would retain the right to decide whether or not recreational drug use among its employees created a business risk. Employers that did find a risk (lost productivity, increased likelihood of health problems, absenteeism, etc. would have a NO DRUG clause in its employment contract and employees would have the option of not working there if they wanted to continue using recreational drugs.

Society: The negative effects on society may not have such clear costs for the drug user to shoulder, or at least I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Crimes committed to support habits would still be punishable under the law. But let’s say schools still wanted to preach the JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS mantra, then I could see implementing a special sales tax, much like the cigarette tax, on drugs sold legally to help defer the costs incurred by the schools. I’m sure other could think of better examples.

So how would the proponents of recreational drug use and legalization react to such conditions? Do you want to play, but not pay? Or will you fork over the costs?

42

Good point, Sua.
I don’t really know why conservatives continue to bring this up. I would think that they are simply trying to contradict their opponents except that they continue to argue after someone points out the problems. There must be some ideological need that this myth addresses or they would be able to see their error.

SpoilerVirgin,

I’m glad you are not one of those who want to believe our system has prevented any and all injustice. I agree that a direct democracy is impractical but I think this country could use a bit more democracy than we currently enjoy. I feel national referenda would be a good idea, provided the process of proposal was properly promoted. My purpose was to contrast the problems you believe will occur against those that we know have already occurred.

I’m afraid you have misconstrued Mr Madison’s words* a bit.
His point isn’t that we need checks and balances to prevent tyranny. His point is that all the checks and balances in the world can’t prevent tyranny if folks don’t object to it. Checks and balances can’t keep us free, only a vigilant citizenry can do so. Madison makes this statement on June 20, 1788 during the ratification debate in Virginia. He is responding to critics of the Constitution, including George Mason, who are claiming that elected officials will abuse every power given to them. In their desperation to find any excuse to stop Virginia from ratifying the Constitution they are devising scary scenarios as to how tyranny can be accomplished. Madison is pointing out that it is unreasonable to assume that officials will act badly in every instance. He doesn’t place his trust in the form of government, he places it in the voters.

I use the sig because I like the context.
The style of argument used here by the “Anti-Federalists” are of exactly the same type used against me in debates over the “tyranny of the majority”. These arguments are prejudiced. If we start from the assumption that officials will act badly then any system can be shown to be dangerously irresponsible. Any government that works can be made to work for the wrong goals.

    • Madison isn’t the original author of this quote.
      Alexander Hamilton had previously used it in Federalist #1 and they both may be quoting an earlier speaker. I use Madison’s name because I like the context as I said and also because he has more mana than Hamilton amongst those that admire the Framers.

Pjen,

Thanks for answering. I don’t agree and am working up a reply.

Just my 2sense

43

Scotland has a Parliament, not an Assembly.

Pjen, could you provide some information as to why you believe the Scots will legalise drugs before the rest of the UK?

44

Pjen,

When I was first reading your post it reminded me of the comments of your countryman, Jeremy Bentham- a really bright outsider who praises the American system without understanding its nuances. As I read it again I realized I was wrong. You didn’t demonstrate a misunderstanding of how things work here. Indeed it seems you know more of my system than I know of yours ( hardly unusual for an American ). Perhaps then we will just disagree.

I’ll have to partially concede your point about the political power of our states.
Hardcore proponent of a stronger central government though I am I can see the benefits of regional political authority. States can try different approaches to problems. This allows us as citizens of states more opportunity to create solutions that fit our particular situation and political preferences. OTOH there is a major problem with States Rights. The spheres of influence are somewhat arbitrary. There is no utilitarian approach to deciding what should be decided by states and what should be the purview of the federal government. Instead we rely on tradition to answer this question. This means that some problems which can’t be handled within each state but also can’t be handled by the federal government. The example that comes to mind is water rights. A state that is upriver from me can regulate my water supply and I have no say in the matter. Another example is free enterprise energy production. The mess Cali made of their deregulation cost people in other states higher utility bills without any input from them. State politicians can make decisions that effect citizens of other states, hardly an example of greater democracy.

Then there is the limitation of public oversight.
We split our government up into powerful branches. You say that this gives us more opportunity for voter influence and I agree but that possibility isn’t always fulfilled. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and this is almost impossible given the way our political power is divided. Very few have the time to monitor the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of their federal, state, county, and township/municipal governments as well as the local school board and other minor elective bodies. There just aren’t enough hours in the day. This creates the dark corners where influence thrives.

In addition, I’m sure I need not remind you the extraordinary disservice to African-Americans done in the name of States Rights.

Regarding our central governments though, it seems to me that you Brits unquestionably have more democratic control.
You say Britain has no effective legislative power yet the Commons is the legislature. You call the Commons an elective dictatorship. By that standard our system is a semielected oligarchy.

As far as passing laws goes our federal government is basically divided into four main parts.
The most powerful part is the Supreme Court and the other federal judges. They are not elected. These courts can wave their hands and laws just disappear. The only way around this is to wait until enough judges die or retire ( and hope you control the White House and Senate when they do ) or the aformentioned amendment process which requires a supermajority.
The most visible part is the Presidency. He ( no women yet ) has plenty of influence over legislation and has the veto power which can only be overridden by another supermajority. He is not directly elected by the citizenry. Instead we use the Electoral College which I won’t get off on a rant on here.
Next is our upper house. The collection of “rotten boroughs” known as the Senate is elected these days but they serve six year terms so it takes three election cycles to throw all of the bums out if it comes to that.
Then there is the House of Representatives. Our lower houses are similarly composed but there is a significant difference: gerrymandering. In America the politicians get to pick the voters that are going to pick them.

Those are the branches of the tree of lawmaking here in the US.
Under Parliament The People have the ability, in a single election, to sweep in a party with the power to accomplish their mandate. In the US if opposition controls even one of these other branches then change can be stalled indefinitely.
Thus it seems to me that your democracy is stronger.

Just my 2sense
And, whereas, it has been reported that several of our low-born brethren have had the horrid audacity to think for themselves in regard to this new system of government, and, dreadful thought! have wickedly begun to doubt concerning the perfection of this evangelical constitution… - “John Humble”, 1787

45

The technical term as supplied by that great Scottish Statesman Billy Connally is ‘wee pretendy parliament’ ;).

I think that Scotland will be the engine for many changes within the UK over the next few years. It has the joint advantage of a more socially tolerant electorate and of proportional representation which would allow greater risks on such issues. Already Scotland’s wee pretendy parliament is forcing the biggun in Westminster to reconsider Student Loan repayment procedures. Watch this space for more UK-wide social change caused by the Scottish Parliament.

46

Reply to 2sense:

I disn’t intend to over-praise the US system, merely to show differences between the systems.

The US system allows greater real democracy on issues like Capital Punishment, taxation of gasoline and tobacco, response to crime. British public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of CP, low tax gasoline, alcohol, and to a lesser extent tobacco, and increasing the lock up rate for criminals. Succesive governments have ensured no CP, high taxes and only slowly rising incarceration (compared to the US).

Additionally, over the past fifty years the political differences between the Democrats and the Republicans have been considerably less than between the Conservatives and the Labour Party- leading to an easier option of giving the other lot a chance without major change in the US, or the option of major change in the UK. Single issue politics just does not work in the UK as the baggage carried by the party is much greater.

The point that I was trying to make is that the US system encourages change towards the political norm within the electorate whereas the UK system alows greater risk taking beyond the political norm- a party can take a grossly unpopular decision and still be confidant of reelection in the UK (Tony Blair will use this to enforce joining the Euro over the next few years- a referendum will be called that will temporarily convince people to vote for it, and then support will tail off after that; Blair may be blamed, but not enough to risk a return to a very right-wing Conservative government. A similar accommodation could be made over drugs. No such accommodation is available in the US until the majority of people are willing to not punish legislators who speak out against the war on drugs. I think that a similar process is beginning within the US over CP, but this may be a fifty year process.

And I should admit a little knowledge of the US government- civics and history in high school and government and history courses in College in California in the sixties have left me with some residual knowledge!

47

:eek: That’s horrible! It’s a good thing your don’t have more democracy then… er…

Seriously though, those policies are things I admire in Britian. Nevertheless, if they are unpopular they should go. I have to wonder if these are serious positions, that is- are these people willing to foot the bill for more roads ( which are now paid for primarily by gas taxes right? ) and prisons with say an income tax increase?

I think I grok your point about political parties. You’re saying that yours’ actually stand for something so there is less incentive to abandon them. Here issues like that would eventually come up in the primaries and give the party faithful a chance to have their say. I must confess complete ignorance as to how your candidates are chosen. I do have some idea of how you decide when to hold elections and it seems to me you could stand to shorten the maximum length of the election cycle.

Downplaying your grasp of my government is mere modesty. Mine sadly is mere honesty.
Thanks for the lesson.

Just my 2sense

48

The power stucture within British politics is as follows:

A general election is called and candidates are chosen by the parties. Increasingly over the past fifty years these are not local choices of the local party, but are effectively chosen by the national party offices; there are no primaries. Thus, the national party has the power to choose candidates from the outset. About half the constituencies are resolutely conservative or labour and a further sixth are unlikely to change except in exceptional years. This leaves about 200 seats that are reasonably ‘up for grabs’. These are called marginals. The central party can therefore place its own candidates into safe seats. Independent candidates stand no chance of election except in truly exceptional cases, maybe half a dozen in the past forty years.

Neither main party is run as an openly democratic organization; the conservatives have never really understood democracy anyway (they are currently allowing their members to elect its leadr for the first time ever); the labour party was run by the unions until ten years ago, and is no run by a power group at the center of the party- democracy went out the window just as soon as the unions were disempowered.

Thus the make-up of the House of Commons is determined mainly by two powerful central parties. The people speak about the share and a governmnet is formed by the leader of the majority party who becomes Prime Minister. Once in place this person inherits the effective power of a Georgian monarch- exercising the royal prerogative as if they were sovereign (the real sovereign is effectively removed from the process except as a cipher.) The PM chooses his/her own cabinet without any referral to parliament and can dismiss and reappoint without any further reference.

Now the PM has to control the House of Commons. Because the PM chooses not only the Cabinet, but also all the lesser posts in government, about 2/3 of his/her MPs are part of the government and paid more as such- this is known as the pay-roll vote- people tied to supporting the government, otherwise their position and salaries will be withdrawn.

The committe system in the House of Commons is almost totally ineffective compared with congressional committees.

The Judiciary is appointed by the government by hidden and secret processes known as ‘taking soundings’- an old boys network.

The House of Lords is increasingly becoming a limit on Government, but still lacks major powers and is always open to packing if the government thinks that it can get away with it.

The European Human Rights legislation is beginning to place some limits on government but this is at its early stages.

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies (and wee pretendy parliaments) are beginning to give an alternative power source, but these have no constitutional guarantee, and Westminster can always overrule them if necessary.

The only check is the possibility of losing power at the next election, the date of which is chosen at three weeks notice by the PM.

We have no true constitution, just a list of understandings and conventions.

Welcome to Ruritania!

49

Well, I’ve got to wonder if he’s not right. In New Zealand there is a Legalise Cannabis Party and it has been possible to vote for that Party in National and Local Body elections for some time. There is a great deal of apparent enthusiasm for legalisation in New Zealand and there always has been. Also, our current members of parliament are very liberal. A dope smoking (for religious reasons) Rastafarian, Greenies, Gays and women’s rights advocates are in power.

On election days, however, drugs enthusiasts just don’t make it to the polling booths. Some of their friends are probably rotting in jail for growing and selling cannabis and they can’t go down and put a cross or tick in a little box? Why not? It’s not so hard, it’s not so hard. It’s weird is what it is.

In local body elections due to take place in the near future in my city it will be possible to vote for the former leader of the Black Power gang for mayor. Black Power’s counterpart in the U.S. is probably something like the Bloods or the Crips although I stand to be corrected on that. You know, local government and democracy has the potential to be a very, very fun. All it takes is a little tick in a box.