Thank you Tabeitha. I will add that to my long list of books to read
Do you mean to say that once a law is passed, one cannot argue its legitimacy?
Perhaps it is easier, though I am not at all sure of that, but just as a personal thing, I don’t like to concede any ground at the outset to the prohibitionists, and I feel like, if I start by presenting reasons why drugs should be legalized, I have wrongly accepted the burden of proof.
My feelings exactly.
I consider this question irrelevent. Even if it were true, it is not a legitimate function of government to stop people from doing drugs.
As I said in another thread, in this country anybody can sue anyone for anything. A better question would be, should the law permit people to recover damages in civil court for the effects of these drugs? My answer would be, certainly not, as long as the manufacturers and distributors made no effort to conceal them.
I don’t know what actually would happen, but I would be strongly opposed to either of these things.
What Sua said.
I certainly do. Are you sure you want to even consider continuing the current “war” on these substances, seeing what a horrific failure it has been?
I object to that question. Following on the principle I outlined earlier, the proper question is, what good comes from keeping them illegal? Bearing in mind that it is not the government’s job to keep people from harming themselves.
Ummm…yes. That’s more or less what I am saying. I think.
But the government will be expected to pay for the welfare, medical expenses, and burial of those who excercise these personal liberties correct? And the government will be the first place that relatives of the deceased and zombified junkies will turn to for action.
The government (as defined by Europe & US) is a democracy. The only reason it tries so hard to protect us from ourselves is because the majority of the population demands it. On a personal level, I often think this goes too far. But I’m one of the many who is not willing to accept a higher drug casulty rate in exchange for the high ideal of absolute personal liberty. The right to act foolish is a hard rallying cry for me to buy into.
It is one thing to argue for the legalization of something like pot which has a relatively low risk factor. It’s another thing entirely to argue for the legalization of drugs that have a substantial chance of ruining your life after just one use. And we must also keep in mind that in the future there will be more and more designer drugs created by folks who really do not have the welfare of their users in mind. It would be foolhardy to give an open bill of sale to any drug that someone cooks up in their basement. There would have to be some type of governmental oversight as to what is approved and what is not. This too would be an infringement on personal liberty but it would increase a user’s odds of being alive to enjoy what liberty they do have.
You can argue about its legitmacy all you want. But when you’ve got laws that have 70+ years of history and plenty of popular political support it won’t do you much good to argue their legitimacy. What you’ve got to do is argue about what good the law does and what affect enforcement has had on the country.
**
Drugs are already illegal and I don’t believe any court of law has disagreed. So the burden of proof is on you. It isn’t fair but that’s the way it is.
In addition, there are loving parents who do not want their kids exposed to these drugs, lest these children’s lives be ruined. It’s one thing to say, “It’s my body; I can destroy myself if I want to.” It’s another thing to hear your own children say the very same thing.
Years ago, the very conservative National Review published a cover story which advocated the legalization, or at least the decriminalization, of many if not all drugs. That fact alone shows that drug legalization/decriminalization is not by any means a radical, lunatic fringe idea.
There are also parents who don’t want their kids exposed to violent cartoons, sex on the internet, or opposing religious viewpoints… but we don’t outlaw those, because keeping things away from kids is the parents’ job.
Well to be fair, there are other reasons why the government hasn’t outlawed sex on the 'net and the expression of opposing religious viewpoints. (Freedom of expression, freedom of worship and international nature of the Internet, for example.) Also, there are limits to the amount of violence that can be shown on cartoons in the American airwaves.
Anyway, the point is that drugs don’t just affect the person consuming them. They also affect the people around them and society at large. That’s why it’s inadequate to simply argue that “It’s my body and I’ll do what I want with it!”
Mere weeks ago, The Economist published a rather in depth survey advocating legalization, and looking at the effects of the current policy. Judging from his posts, SuaSponte seems to have that issue available.
Of course, as a libertarian, I’m in the pro-legalization corner, but most of what I’d want to say here has already been said.
Are you saying that if not for the First Amendment, it would be reasonable to outlaw them?
Potentially. But everything has potential dangers and misuses.
If you snort a few lines and go out beating up people on the street, you’re affecting others… if you smoke a joint and watch sitcoms all night, you aren’t. Similar arguments can be made for alcohol, prescription medicines, gasoline, baseball bats, butter knives, gambling, internet file sharing, or most anything else.
Since it would be unreasonable NOT to have the First Amendment, that’s a contradictory premise.
Granted. It’s not always clear where the line should be drawn.
Besides, remember that I’m not specifically arguing FOR or AGAINST the legalization of drugs – or even any of the many stances in between. I’m merely pointing out that the “It’s my body, dammit!” argument doesn’t apply in this situation.
Too wide a brush. Using a butter knife as it is intended won’t cause any harm. Using an injection of heroin as it is intended will cause ill health effects and possibly death.
Look back to Larry Mudd’s post. With drugs illegal, there is no incentive for drug dealers not to sell drugs to kids - they’ve already committed the crime. If drugs are legal for adults and illegal for kids, there is a legal customer base, and the incentive to sell to the illegal customer base is diminished.
Further (and yes, I know this sounds callous), why should the potential problems of someone else’s kid infringe on an adult’s right to do with his/her body what he/she chooses?
Why is it unreasonable not to have the First Amendment? Because the government has no place in saying how people can and can not express themselves. So why should the government have a say in what I choose to do to myself. I know that is the argument you don’t like, but the First Amendment can effect your family and people around you too. If I tell my parents that I hate them and to go fuck themselves it will cause some family problems, but the government is not allowed to stop me from saying that. If I want to cause family problems by doing drugs the government shouldn’t be able to stop me from doing that either.
I have been unable to find any information that tells me how many heroin users turn into addicts or how many heroin users die or suffer ill effects. I have found plenty of sites that list the potential effects of chronic use.
But this doesn’t really help us determine numbers or what should be considered an acceptable casualty ratio.
There’s no way this stuff is ever going to be legalized. It would only take a couple worst case scenarios wheeled out in front of a TV camera to end any such vote because the worst case scenarios are really really bad.
I have been unable to find any information that tells me how many heroin users turn into addicts or how many heroin users die or suffer ill effects. I have found plenty of sites that list the potential effects of chronic use.
**
Some of the ill effects could be caused by the fact that illegal heroin is not pure. It is cut with chemicals and other shit that is not good for people to have in their system. I am not saying that pure heroin is great for you, but I imagine some of the ill effects would be eliminated or lessened with legalization.
Because you can later reconcile with your parents after you tell them to fuck off. You can’t if you’re decomposing corpse with a needle stuck in it’s arm.
Using drugs to get back at your family is a foolish choice. One of the questions being debated here is, should the government try to protect you from your own foolishness or should it just let you play Russian roulette with your body and just bury you in a pit if you lose?
I don’t like the idea of the government restricting our choices, but young people make many foolish choices, choices that they would regret later if they were still able to do so. It’s true that we are failing to keep heavy drugs out of the hands of some young people now, but we are keeping it away from some. Just the illegal stigma of such drugs is enough to deter some people away from doing something that could ruin their life.
While I agree that our current system isnt working, I am reluctant to simply throw in the towel and hope that the local hospitals and morgues can handle the influx.
To ensure heroin purity would require the government to have some role in testing it and outlawing heroin that fails such tests. I mention this as a point that some governmental interference would be involved.
This would cut down on overdoses caused by varying purity and deaths caused by dealers introducing other agents into the heroin.
Addiction, withdrawal, collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulitis, and liver disease would still be a problem for and possible end of a user.
The Economist, citing studies from the FDA and other agencies in the U.S. and Europe, reports that 30-35% of heroin users become dependent. I have no data on what percentage of that 30-35% suffer long-term health effects. A goodly number of the health effects noted in your links are caused by IV drug use, and snorting heroin is becoming more popular.
The government has already established an acceptable casualty ratio - each year there are 4 million deaths worldwide due to smoking (no immediately available cite for U.S. smoking deaths). Tobacco kills proportionately more of its users than heroin kills of its users, and I recall a study that determined that smoking kills approximately 8% of smokers.
If that logic were truly applicable, tobacco would have been banned years ago.
Thank you Tabeitha. I will add that to my long list of books to read 