The Drug Policy Foundation has a short video on a young man who has been caught up in the drug hysteria in the U.S. How many lives will the drug banners have to ruin before they finally give up on their irrational policies?
The Drug Policy Foundation has a short video on a young man who has been caught up in the drug hysteria in the U.S. How many lives will the drug banners have to ruin before they finally give up on their irrational policies?
Will we ever see the light at the end of the tunnel?
Do you want to say that you support drug smokers and drug sellers?
I support their right to freedom of self-medication and freedom of trade, just as I support the right of cocktail drinkers and liquor store owners. The question as phrased elides the difference between “supporting” the behavior and “supporting” the right; the difference is crucial. I “support the right” of people to say foolish things (such as that drugs should be illegal) without “supporting what they say.”
Your position is quite a sophisticated one. Would you also support the right to call for killings of other people (without supporting what they say)? Would you support the right of drug sellers to go to children advertising the great feelings those children may get out of drugs (of course, without supporting their ideas)??
It’s always about the children…
R2D’s questions are elementary, but reasonable. The answer is definitely no to the first and a qualified (qualified by the definition of “children”) to the second.
With regard to the first, a threat of violence is actionable if it represents a clear and present danger. On the other hand, an expression in general terms (“”Disfavored Group X'” should be killed”) is an expression of an opinion and, unless accompanied by a danger that it will be actualized, not a threat that warrants a legal response. In contrast, rallying outside a person’s home and burning a white cross on the lawn is more than a violation of property rights in a lawn; it is a threat of murder and should be treated as such. There is no right to threaten people with loss of their lives. So, yes, I would support the right of deranged people to say that other people should be killed without supporting what they call for (obviously), unless that expression is reasonably construed as a threat that warrants a legal response. For example, R2D2 supports using violence and deadly force against people who consume or sell narcotics; I support R2D2’s right to express that opinion, without supporting the opinion itself.
With regard to the second question, I would be fine with applying to narcotics the current regime governing the sale and marketing of alcohol, which may not be sold to underage children, but may be sold to adults and marketed as offering a pleasurable experience. It’s true that children see or hear such messages, but that is no reason to make alcohol illegal. We tried that experiment and it was just as disastrous as the current prohibition of narcotics, which, like prohibition of alcohol, enriches organized crime and encourages violent competition among suppliers, corruption of law enforcement agencies, and deaths by overdoses that wouldn’t happen were the drugs available on a free market. Where I would depart strongly from the policy is regarding the question of the definition of a “child.” I believe that the current law in the U.S., which classifies as “children” for purposes of alcohol sales and consumption people who are legally allowed to vote, to serve in the military, to drive, and to serve on juries, is irrational. For one thing, since they may drive at 16, but may not purchase alcohol until 21, there is a strong incentive for them to get into their cars (where they can be away from the observation of adults) to consume alcohol, with predictably horrifying results. A more rational policy would be to allow alcohol sales at 16 and issue drivers’ licenses at 17 or 18, so that young people who choose to drink would acquire the habit of drinking around adults and walking or taking public transport home, rather than being forced to drink only among other young people, frequently in cars, as is too often the case in the U.S. The current age of consent for alcohol — 21 — is too high and should be lowered. I would make the age of consent for marijuana and other currently prohibited drugs and for alcohol the same.
I think it’s important to note that the drug banners did not ruin the life of this young man. This kid ruined his life by breaking the law. He decided to trade his life in exchange for his life + a joint or a couple of bucks profit + the risk of getting punished. With all the state sponsored D.A.R.E. programs and such, this kid knew that participating in marijuana trade is against the law. What would have been unjust is changing the law after the game had started.
It is unfortunate that the rules of the game say, “No drugs allowed”. People should be free to do as they choose but as long as they’re not, people can measure payoff v. risk when it comes to each law they choose to obey or break. I don’t think the drug banners are to blame for ruining lives. Blame them for passing irrational legislation that costs people happiness and this country a whole lotta cheddar. I don’t use marijuana because it’s expensive and illegal. If we ever see the light and remove prohibition, both of these problems will be solved and I’ll indulge in a high with my friends once in a while. ‘Til then, I’ve decided it is not worth the risk. This kid thought otherwise. He has now got two years to rethink the value of a high or a quick buck at the expense of his legal status.
Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Palmer. I didn’t understand your position, when I asked my questions. Now I think I do understand it. I agree with your opinion partly – when you speak about alcohol and driving. But how can you regard alcohol and narcotics as equals without making difference between types of narcotics? Alcohool is times and times less harmful than narcotics, because you should put lots of efforts to damage seriously your health with alcohol, but it’s enough to try some of narcotics just once to ruin one’s life. How can you ignore that?? It’s also strange that you make no difference between freedom of selling this sort of things and freedom of advertisment. Alcohol and cigarettes advertisments are banned on TV in Europe and are less and less allowed in public places in European countries. That is the right way to reduce the number of people addicted to such things. It really works! Now smoking is banned in public places in many European countries – that is the general trend. And you are calling for reversing this trend…
I strongly disagree with Matthew’s remarks. Yes, the young man chose to engage in a risky action. But the action should not have been risky; in the absence of such foolish laws, his actions would not have ruined his life. So the causation is at least joint. If the state were to forbid all sexual relations and a young couple went ahead and engaged in sex, would one conclude that when they were imprisoned they bore full responsibility, since “they ruined their lives by breaking the law”?
To evaluate R2D2’s remarks requires some knowledge of pharmacology and it’s clear that his knowledge is far less than mine. Check the alcohol mortality statistics from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm
Then check the marijuana mortality statistics from the CDC:
Oops…you can’t find any….imagine that! Marijuana is not a toxic substance and, although it can certainly have a serious effect on motivation and other features of a human being when indulged in to excess, it’s just about impossible to kill yourself with marijuana, unlike alcohol.
No serious student of the subject believes that “it’s enough to try some of narcotics just once to ruin one’s life.”
With regard to the campaigns to ban cigarette smoking, I am strongly opposed to them. I’m a non-smoker who doesn’t like the idea that the state takes it upon itself to tell people how to live then uses force to back up their demands. I don’t like smoking and I have encouraged friends to stop, simply for the effects on health, appearance, and the like. But I am not against the pleasure it brings, nor would I use force to change their behavior. Many of the fanatical tobacco banners make a big point out of wanting to eliminate nicotine, as if somehow evil. But nicotine is rather benign and has some positive health effects, such as weight control and its inverse correlation with Alzheimer’s; what’s dangerous about smoking is not the nicotine, which is the main source of the pleasure, but the tar and other elements that are delivered with the smoke.
I’m opposed to the current war on pleasure. What’s wrong with pleasure? I’m “addicted” to coffee. I can barely function without it in the morning (and for the rest of the day). I like it. A lot. And I rather like certain kinds of food, which I also find pleasurable. And I enjoy good wine and, in certain settings, beer. People who want to use force to make me change my behavior can shove off. It’s my life, not theirs. I’m opposed to the deeply immoral use of coercion to force people to change their behavior. It’s wrong. It doesn’t work. It’s degrading and undignfied. And it’s a perversion of the law that diverts police resources from crimes with victims, at the same time that it creates corruption within the police forces by creating crimes without victims, a situation that requires that the police spy on and entrap people (since there is no complaining victim) and creates opportunities for bribes, favors, and worse.
Victimless crime laws are uncivilized, immoral, and unjustifiable.
I, too, agree that the laws against “victimless crimes” are foolish. The young man should be free to do as he wishes as long no other person is having a right violated from his action.
If you engage in ‘A’ when ‘A’ clearly carries consequences when caught, you are responsible. An unfair law (which the current law is) does not exempt you from responsibility when breaking it though. If I fail to give up 30% of my income next April and subsequently find myself in the same mess this other young man did, neither of us will (or at least should) need to look very far for someone to levy a blame on as each of us are responsible for our own actions.
Self-responsibility is a hallmark of maturity. Love it or hate it, as long as it’s in the books, REGARDLESS of it’s fairness, you can live by it while trying to change it or personally decide that the payoff from breaking it is worth accepting the risk of punishment it carries. But if you mess with the bull, you just might get the horns.
Same rule applies to a young couple who engage in sex while ruled illegal. Life is not fair. If say sex were forbidden and I engaged in sex and was caught and punished accordingly, I would be (at the least jointly, if not 100 percent) responsible.
I think that Dr. Palmer is refering to joint responsibility for the act, but all of the moral responsibility belongs to the party that violated the right. You should not be punished for doing that to which you have a right. If a person walks down a dark alley and is attacked, then it’s true that the person is responsible for walking down the dark alley and could have predicted the consequences, but it is the attacker who bears 100$ of the moral responsibility. We should be able to walk down even dark alleys without fear of attackers. And we should be able to smoke marijuana or anything else if we choose to do so without being arrested. (Naturally, we bear all of the causal responsibility and all of the moral responsibility for the consequences to ourselves with regard to health and wellbeing.)
(I apologize for the typing errors. That should be ‘100%’. And now I see a spelling/typo. Uh oh. Maybe I could use some coffee, too, before I type comments on blogs.)
I fail to see the haziness that so many people do when it comes to self-responsibility. Life’s not fair. I want to fly like a bird. Gravity and fluid mechanics forbid it. I’m responsible for leaving all gravitational force or growing into an airplane if I want to fly. I suppose I could try and change physical laws but that might prove futile. Or I could assume the payoff of jumping off a building while inherently assuming the risk of gravity and my poor flying ability “catching” and punishing me.
Same principle applies here. Let’s assume the worst like the hypothetical scenario of the prohibition of sex. In addition to taking (in this scenario what would be a very concerted) effort to decriminalize sex, I can do one of the following:
a) personally decide the risk outweighs the payoff and withstain from engaging in sex while forgoing the physical and/or emotional payoff that come with my engagement
b) personally decide the payoff outweighs the risk and engage in sex and risk the lawful consequences that come with my engagement
You personally decide your fate from these two (albeit sorrowful) choices. I have tried to be clear that I am not defending the anti-drug law. I have been attacking the weak argument that one is not responsible for his personal decisions. I hope the hypothetical, doomsday scenario illustrates the consistency of self-responsibility even under the most dire of cirumstances.
As this hypothetical also shows, it’s not called the “dismal science” for nothin’… =)
Sorry for the double post. I meant the second while meaning to preview the first.
But again, don’t walk down a dark alley. Don’t do drug trade. Don’t ___ all day long. Everything’s a risk. At the least, if we voluntarily decide upon an action, we are jointly responsible for its consequences.
In the case of the kid, the risk seems high enough to warrant a pretty damn high degree of responsibility on himself. Someone driving safely and getting hit by a drunk driver at 5 in the afternoon can pass a large degree of the blame onto the drunk driver. But, hey, sh*t happens commuter. Take the train, telecommute, move close to work, look both ways before driving through a green etc.
The most important lesson I ever learned was in my undergrad economics course. I knew it as soon as I heard it: everything you do in life is a choice. From that first premise, YOU are responsible for EVERYTHING you do. Be it sell drugs, commute to work, eat up to and including live in general.
You can share the blame with whomever you choose but, ultimately, you made the choice to undertake whatever it is you do. Life is unfair and that’s that. However, political participation is of the utmost importance because it is in the arena of law that we can make it as fair as possible.
I certainly don’t have sufficient knowledge of pharmacology, as Dr. Palmer pointed out rightly. But I know, as anyone does, that there is a significant difference between marijuana and, say, heroin. So, if you just argue to exclude marijuana from the list of prohibited drugs, you are, probably, right – the knowledge of pharmacology is really needed to make a well-thought judgement on this point. But if you argue that people just have the right to sell ANY type of narcotics, you ignore the striking difference, which exists in terms of health damage between alcohool drinkers and heroin addicts. Government cannot just stand still when people are selling death to others.
When you write about cigarettes ban, you forget about passive smoking – people, who smoke publicly, are violating the right of others to keep their health in proper condition. You may smoke anything in your room, but when you do it publicly, it’s a different thing. If you commit a suicide in your room, let’s say it’s your right, although I wouldn’t agree with such an action. When you do it publiclly, it’s government’s responsibility to prevent you from doing this, because you influence people’s minds with a violent act, while they have a right to live peacefully.
Thus, if you may be arrested for smoking something etc. in your room – this would be a violation of your rights. If you do it publicly, if you sell some sort of dangerous product to the others, if you advertise a dangerous product, you should be prevented from doing this and rightly so as people around you should be protected – they also have their rights.
symptoms of diabetes
diabet1dia . symptoms of diabetes .
diabetes symptoms
diabetes symptoms
diabetes treatment
diabetes treatment