7 ms·

Do Psychedelic Drug Laws Violate Human Rights?

91 points by Hooke 11y ago

transfire 11y ago
Yes.
mathattack 11y ago
If you follow this train of thought, don't all drug laws (or really any laws that restrict what 2 consenting adults can trade with each other or put in their bodies) violate human rights? I'm not taking either side - life's too complicated - it's interesting to watch.
- whitegrape 11y ago
  Rights fights are indeed fun to watch. I particularly enjoy the idea that a violation of human rights as a category includes things like forcing someone into slavery and as per the EU charter's 17.2 or the UN charter's 27.2 also includes music piracy.
- hosh 11y ago
  I'm thinking more of, that human-rights basis may be applicable to DIY bio mods. Where it is going to get interesting is in how it intersects with things like gene editing for humans.
- sdegutis 11y ago
  It's interesting how so many people say "let individuals do what they want" without accepting the fact that society is made up of individuals who do not live in a vacuum. My wife always used to say that it should be, "your rights end where someone else's begin," but that's a difficult line to draw without risking incorrectly removing someone's legitimate rights.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    The thing is there are people who think that riding a motorcycle without a helmet should be against the law. Not because it reduces injuries in ERs and save lives, but because supposedly the relatives of those people have interests greater than that of the individual being reckless. That to me is troubling since then by such inference that obese people should be fined until they get closer to their ideal BMI. Or smokers too. Hell, anyone that enjoys coffee a bit too much. The point is where you draw the line? I think we should err towards the individual liberty side of that line as the unintended consequences will shake out easier in that regard than if we decide towards paternalism.
    - yoplait_ 11y ago
      the difference is that roads are public. You want to take them, you have to obey public safety rules. Same way alcohol is legal but you shoudn't be drunk in the streets.
      - norea-armozel 11y ago
        But there's a difference between reducing risks via restrictions on alcohol consumption as the deaths from drunk driving often include non-drunk drivers getting hit. Where as when you drive without a helmet on your motorcycle the risk of fatality that increases is only your own. A helmet confers no potential safety to other drivers of the road in the same fashion as prohibiting drunk or unbelted driving. Thus, your assertion is without much merit in my opinion.
  - api 11y ago
    I used to think you can draw sharp lines here, but not anymore. Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or malice. I definitely think that non-addictive psychedelic drugs with no demonstrated human toxicity (or not exceeding OTC drug toxicity) should be legal. Perhaps there should be some restrictions. I would be in favor of some form of licensing or gating to set some minimum level of personal responsibility. Maybe if you freak out and end up in a psych ward or commit a crime you lose your license. I'd put it in the same category as driving a car, riding a motorcycle, operating a motorboat, etc. People are going to be stupid with LSD but people are stupid with motorcycles and rock climbing and those are legal. Harder drugs? I'm open minded. I used to be against the legalization of heroin, crack, cocaine, meth, etc., but then I read up on Portugal's experience with heroin and now I'm more open to the idea of a pure harm-reduction approach. But I am wary of these. Alcohol is legal and there are alcoholics everywhere. I don't think criminal prosecution is the right tool for the job, but I also am not sure we want more of that.
    - adrusi 11y ago
      I agree with what you've said, though I tend more toward the liberal side. I'd point out though that "not exceeding OTC drug toxicity" is a very low threshold: just a few more acetominophen tablets or asprins than recommended can induce acute liver failure. This is exacerbated if you also drink alcohol. It's one of the most common forms of poisoning and the top cause of acute liver failure in the US. It's not easy to accidentally overdose on a drug when it's sold in standard doses, especially if dosage information is presented honestly. The government's position on drugs only serves to increase the rate of overdose among the population using them.
      - api 11y ago
        Yeah, I just said that to draw a line somewhere. You could eat LSD powder with a spoon and be technically okay, provided you could contend with the spoon's Ka in the liminal realm.
    - tbrownaw 11y ago
      Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or malice. Or regulatory inertia, or differing priorities, or effects you don't recognize / didn't account for, or...
  - atom-morgan 11y ago
    How does my use of drugs infringe upon someone else's rights?
    - mystikal 11y ago
      In practice, rights are protections provided by other people, and you can't provide them if you are too fucked up.
      - adrusi 11y ago
        Well public intoxication is illegal, and the legalization of the possession of drugs wouldn't change that. I'm firmly in the drug-use-is-a-human-right camp, but I don't think that you have a right to use drugs in public. I think it's OK to be under the influence in public as long as your intoxication is subtle enough to be unnoticeable to a casual passerby, but I would oppose getting rid of public intoxication laws. You have a right to drug use in private or where everyone present consents to your using drugs, like in group psychedelic rituals.
        mystikal 11y ago
        Oh yeah, I meant legal rights. I don't disagree with you about the human right necessarily, I just haven't thought about it enough. What I mean is, if you think about extreme situations, drug use will stop people from being able to provide you with legal rights. But forget about drug use, if everybody quit their job - which is totally legal - you wouldn't have any legal rights either. And outside of the realm of people doing paid work, a child has the legal right to be raised by a non-abusive parent or guardian. If the parent is fucked up all the time, legally and at home, that child is having its rights infringed upon. Whether the government intervenes is another question.
        vectorjohn 11y ago
        Seems like a weird arbitrary rule. Why isn't public intoxication considered free speech or something. I don't know how public intoxication laws can be justified.
    - 11y ago
  - adrusi 11y ago
    But very few drugs cause damage to other people, excluding distribution-related violence. Really there's just the trio of opiates, meth and cocaine that lead to real social problems of people commiting crimes while on/obtaining drugs. But, then, there's the point: if your drug use is hurting other people, your actions are already a crime. It can be useful, sometimes, to criminalize a harmless behavior that usually leads to harmful behavior if it would be impractical to enforce laws agains the harmful behavior. But its much easier to enforce laws against theft or starting fights than against possession of small quantities of a substance. Apart from those outliers I listed above, the only common negative result to people other than the user is their lack of productivity and the economic implications of that. And even of those outliers, most users are not addicts and do not hurt others with their drug use.
    - mrob 11y ago
      Alcohol is just as much an outlier in terms of social problems as those you listed.
  - baddox 11y ago
    "Your rights end where someone else's begin" is a reasonable rule of thumb, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny without a much more specific theory of rights. An obvious example is that many people consider things like health care, a living wage, shelter, food, etc. to be human rights, in which case one could argue that putting a competitor out of business simply by offering a better/cheaper product more efficiently violates the rights of the losing competitor.
    - LesZedCB 11y ago
      Maybe it really is true that upholding our current economic structure is a violation of human rights? As Proudhon said, "Property is theft!"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
      - baddox 11y ago
        I can certainly entertain the suggestion of an antipropertarian society. I don't actually think it would work, but at least it's an intellectually consistent political philosophy, unlike most modern takes on democratic socialism.
        LesZedCB 11y ago
        Well, it would have to be a better alternative than what we have now. Though I think the massive inequality globally and nationally is enough to say it needs to happen. I'm not sure what you mean by modern takes on democratic socialism. Sanders is most certainly not a socialist, if that's what you mean, despite being for a progressive welfare state. If one upholds private property rights, they are not a socialist. Democratic socialism simply is socialism where socialist economic structure is ushered in by means of the bourgeois democratic system as opposed to (or at least in unison with) revolutionary movements.
        baddox 11y ago
        > Well, it would have to be a better alternative than what we have now. That's one issue. Another is having a feasible way to transition from what we have now. The latter is probably the trickier one. > I'm not sure what you mean by modern takes on democratic socialism. Sanders is most certainly not a socialist, if that's what you mean, despite being for a progressive welfare state. I mean democratic socialism roughly as Sanders describes it, although there's obviously a big range even within the modern definition. So yes, just western democracy with the government doing lots of social programs. Not real socialism.
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  Yes, of course. Telling me what I can and can't put into my own body (not even considering how subjective and arbitrary drug laws are) is a violation of my rights. As long as I don't hurt or harm anyone else, I should be free to use drugs even if I can't pick it up at Walgreens.
  - rosser 11y ago
    As long as I don't hurt or harm anyone else... Does your definition of "harm" include the costs that society is forced to bear for any treatment you might require? (And, no, "I have health insurance" isn't an adequate response to that question. When your health coverage pays for rehab or whatever, my premiums go up, too.) I maintain that "externalized costs" can be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Under a strict interpretation of that ethos, you shouldn't get to unilaterally impose upon me any costs that I wouldn't otherwise have been obligated to bear, had you not engaged in $behavior.
    - x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
      That same argument applies to alcohol, tobacco, or a poor diet, which likely incur even higher externalized costs. Do you believe we should criminalize those, too?
      - rosser 11y ago
        No. Ultimately, as I mentioned in my reply to one of your comment's siblings, I'm in the single-payer healthcare camp. From "Libertarian" premises, however, the solution to those costs is that smokers, drinkers, and people who eat poorly should pay higher healthcare premiums to offset the increased costs they incur. The problem with that, of course (and a big part of why I'm pro-single-payer) is that people who eat poorly, for example, are disproportionately poor, themselves. It turns out, it's expensive, in terms of time and/or money, to eat healthily, and the poor, especially the working poor, tend not to have one or both of those to spare.
      - 0max 11y ago
        You could even add driving a car to that list as well.
- baddox 11y ago
  Yes, but there are complications. Two obvious complications are that the purchaser may not be considered to be consenting if they are not aware of the health risks of a product they're purchasing, or if they have a physical dependency.
  - cobalt 11y ago
    so?
- millstone 11y ago
  Can an addict give consent? Addiction is coercion.
  - RIMR 11y ago
    Should we throw the addict in jail then? How about the mentally ill? They have as little control over themselves as the addict does. Shall we throw them in jail too?
    - millstone 11y ago
      Of course not. Being coerced is not a crime.
  - yoplait_ 11y ago
    drugs do not necessarily cause addiction. I would be ok making drugs illegal to addicts (including alcohol).
  - imgabe 11y ago
    Addicts can and do quit their addictions. In my experience, and there is starting to be some evidence to back this up [1], addiction is usually a symptom of a larger problem. People choose drugs or gambling or obsessively playing video games to escape from something else. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/14443179...
  - adrusi 11y ago
    OK, but then what cigarettes, which are more highly addictive than even cocaine, or alcohol, addiction to which is quite damaging to the economy and public safety, and leads to domestic violence? And what about foods containing refined sugar, which regarding consent demonstrates all the relevant features of addiction? What about microtransaction-based games and stuff like daily fantasy, which take advantage of the depressed? When an addict is buying drugs while sober, they are giving consent. Just because they don't have a choice of not buying the drugs doesn't mean they can't consent to the transaction. I can't choose to not buy food. I can't choose to not pay rent.
- SilasX 11y ago
  I don't think it generalizes to full legalization, but (as I've long said), it does justify a right to some sort of "padded room use" exception. That is, there should be some legal, monitored route to ensure that: a) You can use the drug if seek it out (very limited advertising). b) You will be monitored to make sure you don't go out in public in a disoriented or dangerous state. c) You will be aware of and have easy access to treatment programs if you are showing signs of addiction. Such facilities would have to keep an insurance policy against harms resulting from the clients' usage, including e.g. pre-funding of rehab for some percentage of them. To the extent that most governments don't allow anything like this, that is the rights violation.
  - mathattack 11y ago
    I'm not sure that such facilities could be insurable at any reasonable price. How can you have Heroin or other heavy drugs without eventual fatalities? Families could sue for negligence no matter what rights the users sign away. Very complicated topic.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      How can you have alcohol without eventual fatalities? Same way that a bar's liability insurance covers negligence regarding e.g. drunk patrons they serve.
      - mathattack 11y ago
        Good point. Am I naive in thinking there are more fatalities for heroin than alcohol?
hosh 11y ago
The section of the article discussing paternalism, infantilization, has some interesting connection with that other article on HN, about debunking the ego-depletion theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239674 I can easily see the ego-depletion theory being used as a basis for the idea that people just can't control themselves. Though the problem is also that drug policy makers have been ignoring research. The current argument, as brought up in the interview, is that "illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal."
6stringmerc 11y ago
When an undergrad, I had access to a quite impressive religious library affiliated with a quite reputable protestant theology school. As part of the undergrad criteria, taking a religious course of some sort was mandatory to achieve graduation. I picked something along the lines of Chirstianity and Public Life, and eventually needed a topic for a research essay for the course. Through my research, what I can definitively state is that numerous psychoactive substances - drugs, if you will - are mentioned by and incorporated into nearly every noteworthy world religion in some way, shape, or form. Yes, mostly for the use of the 'visionary' class like the priests and shamans, but it's all right there in the texts that such things had a legitimate role in the respective religious pursuits. I recall a couple cases regarding Native Tribal rights with psychoactives, but those were very limited in scope in the grand scheme of things. Thus, overall I came to the conclusion that US drug laws are fundamentally at odds with the notion of religious freedom from persecution. I plan on doing nothing of importance with this perpsective however. It's just one of those situations that make me go pause and say "Huh, how about that."
mirimir 11y ago
Anti-drug laws plainly violate human rights. And so they breed general disrespect for the law.
Retric 11y ago
Human Rights are arbitrary. So, the only question is what people agree that it means; making this a rather circular justification for anything. EX: Is breathing air free from pollution a human right?
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  FWIW, I would take the strong stance that it damn well should be.
  - achamayou 11y ago
    But what's pollution-free? Taken to the extreme, this implies nobody can drive, or light a camp fire for that matter. It's all about quantity, and balancing the conflicting freedoms of individuals. Your right to breathe perfectly clean air goes against my right to produce energy and heat myself or go places. Likewise, there's a general consensus that the state can detain you temporarily. It's an affront to the freedom of the person detained, but most individuals agree that it's necessary to preserve their freedom to go about safely and without fear of violence. There's a process around it, to try and balance the rights on both sides. It's all in the details and the implementation.
- cubano 11y ago
  The question seems to be then...who the hell is for breathing polluted air, and who would be stupid enough to want to deny others that right?
- _snydly 11y ago
  > So, the only question is what people agree that it means The details make this more complicated, so we're never going to agree. Just like most people agreeing that alcohol okay, but heroin isn't, we'd have to decide what's "free from pollution"? Exactly how many lead atoms/day is okay? And are smokers violating your human rights? Endless arguments :-/
nefitty 11y ago
> The individual shouldn’t be required to prove that these substances are risk-free, because few things in life are—rather it should be up to the state to prove, with scientific evidence, that the risks justify the damage to our civil liberties. In the absence of that, it is impossible that say that this is truly a free society. It's fascinating that the European Convention on Human Rights has a section on freedom of thought. That is such a radical idea, especially in the face of the strength of tradition in Western countries. Looking at this problem from the 6-dimensional moral foundation theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_six_foundations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_s...), I see the main factors holding these drugs hostage to be the particularly conservative values of deference to authority (they're bad because they're illegal) and the desire for group purity (only criminals and bums use drugs, not us good people). A good place to start is what Walsh outlines, scrutinizing the implications for liberty that these prohibitions have. I think wider public discourse would move us closer toward more rational laws. If people see that normal, well-adjusted, successful people (Silicon Valley kids, how's that microdosing going?) use drugs without problems, and also hear from people in authority that they are safer than believed to be in the past, we might make leeway. We have to figure out how to hit as many of those six dimensions as possible to move things forward.
- awinter-py 11y ago
  And you can't accurately perceive the problem in 6 dimensions without substantial help from LSD. So, QED.
gorpomon 11y ago
It's heart breaking watching the UK walk further and further away from liberalism.
- GordonS 11y ago
  The USA has surely been the biggest progenitor of the 'war on drugs', and yet even they are, state by state, legalising cannabis. At a time when other countries are finally seeing the folly of fighting an unwinnable 'war', it is even more ludicrous that the UK should continue down this path (e.g. the Psychoactive Substances Bill which comes into effect in April).
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Yes they do, and I hope to live to the day when people behind these laws are violated in return, at least the memory of them.
panzagl 11y ago
Are there laws which prohibit the actual taking of drugs? I thought they all targeted manufacture, distribution, and sale, which are definitely in the purview of the state to limit. I guess simple possession would be the grey area here, but there are plenty of other substances whose possession is regulated as well.
- adrusi 11y ago
  If you completely eliminate all avenues to acquiring something, then you're taking away the right to have or use it. Imagine if the government had banned the manufacture, distribution and sale of printing presses. Also possession of drugs is hardly a gray area. It's quite explicitly illegal in all countries but a few.
awinter-py 11y ago
Don't all restrictive laws by their definition violate human rights? 'Rights' is the sphere of activity the law agrees not to encroach. This question is tautological. Better question -- given that legalizing psychedelics will make 1% of us healthier or better at our jobs at the cost of doubling the pedestrian strike rate in large cities, do metropolitan mayors want to make that trade?
arprocter 11y ago
The piece mentions David Nutt who was infamously fired by the British government for his use of inconvenient facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_positions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_position...
- GordonS 11y ago
  Yes, it's sad, but drug policy in the UK is not defined based on evidence - rather, it seems to be based on the whims of politicians who understand very little about the drugs that they outlaw.
tn13 11y ago
I am Indian Hindu and I find the western world's laws (which influence others) w.r.t. drugs nothing but racist and prejudiced. Of course it is none of my business how UK/US manage their own country but it is really sad to see that those colonial laws are enforced in my home country and has altered perception of Indians so far away from their roots. I think if start talking about Drug prohibition laws in the perspective of human freedom it is much easier for people like me to go back to my roots. Marijuana and few other forms of mind altering substances have been like a stepping stone towards spiritual progress in several sects of Hinduism and tribal practices. Drugs like Marijuana were often used to those who started off on the tantra path to make them understand that there is more to human mind than they might have thought. Once the mind is opened the students can explore more possibilities and realities. Here is an excellent article by Indologist Dr. Elst
justsaysmthng 11y ago
Psychedelics or entheogens are extremely dangerous for the establishment, because they (might) affect the user's worldview and ultimately users end up challenging the "truths" that the establishment so dearly spoon fed them since they were born. They start to question authority... of the the State, of the Church, of the Justice system, of core societal values... These substances alter the user's brains in unpredictable ways - generating deviant art, music, literature, movies, comedy! Fuck no. Ban everything. Throw them in jails. Dirty hippies. Get jobs. Go to work. Obey. Consume. Repeat. And when the ideology needs fresh blood, send your children to war. Let them die in battle, like real men. The establishment doesn't care about your human rights, never has. They - the makers and players of the game - care about their own well being, driven by the desire to control everything combined with the fear of losing it all. When enough people start playing this game, war becomes inevitable. Human rights don't apply on the battlefield. This sickness can be treated or prevented with the "medicine for the soul".. If wearing glasses is a human right, then using entheogens should also be a human right.
- Retra 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the internet has done far more for changing peoples' worldview than drugs ever have or could. Actually, I find it completely unrealistic that drug use would change anything at all in the realm of what you're talking about. I mean, none of what you've said requires drugs in any way, and most people are perfectly capable in seeing a billion faults in the status quo without them.
  - justsaysmthng 11y ago
    You're pretty sure, but I think you're not seeing the bigger picture. Most of those bands that have enhanced the lives of everyone (society) over the years? Really high.. Would the world still be around if it weren't for the cultural revolution of the '60s - during the height of the cold war, with slogans like "make love not war" and "Imagine" ? Possibly not. The Internet ? Did you know that Doug Engelbart and many other engineers working on the ARPANet were also participating in LSD experiments ? Look it up, it's out there on the Internet. The Internet could have been another secret military technology, you know... It took some acid heads to imagine the whole world "turned on and tuned in". So there was Steve Jobs and his team of psychonauts who jumped in to make that vision real. Check out Google's first ever doodle. Do you notice the Burning Man logo in it ? I guess Larry and Sergey were so inspired by the psychedelic festival that they decided to use it as their startup's logo. 3D animation, Pixar, ILM, Virtual Reality ? Damn hippies. That's the most interesting part about psychedelics is that the trip never ends.. Once you take it, it changes you forever - you might be sober, but the psychedelic experience goes on - in what you say, what you do, what you sing... I could go on and on, but again - you can look these things up yourself.

91 points by Hooke 11y ago

Yes.

If you follow this train of thought, don't all drug laws (or really any laws that restrict what 2 consenting adults can trade with each other or put in their bodies) violate human rights? I'm not taking either side - life's too complicated - it's interesting to watch.

whitegrape 11y ago
Rights fights are indeed fun to watch. I particularly enjoy the idea that a violation of human rights as a category includes things like forcing someone into slavery and as per the EU charter's 17.2 or the UN charter's 27.2 also includes music piracy.
hosh 11y ago
I'm thinking more of, that human-rights basis may be applicable to DIY bio mods. Where it is going to get interesting is in how it intersects with things like gene editing for humans.
sdegutis 11y ago
It's interesting how so many people say "let individuals do what they want" without accepting the fact that society is made up of individuals who do not live in a vacuum. My wife always used to say that it should be, "your rights end where someone else's begin," but that's a difficult line to draw without risking incorrectly removing someone's legitimate rights.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  The thing is there are people who think that riding a motorcycle without a helmet should be against the law. Not because it reduces injuries in ERs and save lives, but because supposedly the relatives of those people have interests greater than that of the individual being reckless. That to me is troubling since then by such inference that obese people should be fined until they get closer to their ideal BMI. Or smokers too. Hell, anyone that enjoys coffee a bit too much. The point is where you draw the line? I think we should err towards the individual liberty side of that line as the unintended consequences will shake out easier in that regard than if we decide towards paternalism.
  - yoplait_ 11y ago
    the difference is that roads are public. You want to take them, you have to obey public safety rules. Same way alcohol is legal but you shoudn't be drunk in the streets.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      But there's a difference between reducing risks via restrictions on alcohol consumption as the deaths from drunk driving often include non-drunk drivers getting hit. Where as when you drive without a helmet on your motorcycle the risk of fatality that increases is only your own. A helmet confers no potential safety to other drivers of the road in the same fashion as prohibiting drunk or unbelted driving. Thus, your assertion is without much merit in my opinion.
- api 11y ago
  I used to think you can draw sharp lines here, but not anymore. Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or malice. I definitely think that non-addictive psychedelic drugs with no demonstrated human toxicity (or not exceeding OTC drug toxicity) should be legal. Perhaps there should be some restrictions. I would be in favor of some form of licensing or gating to set some minimum level of personal responsibility. Maybe if you freak out and end up in a psych ward or commit a crime you lose your license. I'd put it in the same category as driving a car, riding a motorcycle, operating a motorboat, etc. People are going to be stupid with LSD but people are stupid with motorcycles and rock climbing and those are legal. Harder drugs? I'm open minded. I used to be against the legalization of heroin, crack, cocaine, meth, etc., but then I read up on Portugal's experience with heroin and now I'm more open to the idea of a pure harm-reduction approach. But I am wary of these. Alcohol is legal and there are alcoholics everywhere. I don't think criminal prosecution is the right tool for the job, but I also am not sure we want more of that.
  - adrusi 11y ago
    I agree with what you've said, though I tend more toward the liberal side. I'd point out though that "not exceeding OTC drug toxicity" is a very low threshold: just a few more acetominophen tablets or asprins than recommended can induce acute liver failure. This is exacerbated if you also drink alcohol. It's one of the most common forms of poisoning and the top cause of acute liver failure in the US. It's not easy to accidentally overdose on a drug when it's sold in standard doses, especially if dosage information is presented honestly. The government's position on drugs only serves to increase the rate of overdose among the population using them.
    - api 11y ago
      Yeah, I just said that to draw a line somewhere. You could eat LSD powder with a spoon and be technically okay, provided you could contend with the spoon's Ka in the liminal realm.
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or malice. Or regulatory inertia, or differing priorities, or effects you don't recognize / didn't account for, or...
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  How does my use of drugs infringe upon someone else's rights?
  - mystikal 11y ago
    In practice, rights are protections provided by other people, and you can't provide them if you are too fucked up.
    - adrusi 11y ago
      Well public intoxication is illegal, and the legalization of the possession of drugs wouldn't change that. I'm firmly in the drug-use-is-a-human-right camp, but I don't think that you have a right to use drugs in public. I think it's OK to be under the influence in public as long as your intoxication is subtle enough to be unnoticeable to a casual passerby, but I would oppose getting rid of public intoxication laws. You have a right to drug use in private or where everyone present consents to your using drugs, like in group psychedelic rituals.
      - mystikal 11y ago
        Oh yeah, I meant legal rights. I don't disagree with you about the human right necessarily, I just haven't thought about it enough. What I mean is, if you think about extreme situations, drug use will stop people from being able to provide you with legal rights. But forget about drug use, if everybody quit their job - which is totally legal - you wouldn't have any legal rights either. And outside of the realm of people doing paid work, a child has the legal right to be raised by a non-abusive parent or guardian. If the parent is fucked up all the time, legally and at home, that child is having its rights infringed upon. Whether the government intervenes is another question.
      - vectorjohn 11y ago
        Seems like a weird arbitrary rule. Why isn't public intoxication considered free speech or something. I don't know how public intoxication laws can be justified.
  - 11y ago
- adrusi 11y ago
  But very few drugs cause damage to other people, excluding distribution-related violence. Really there's just the trio of opiates, meth and cocaine that lead to real social problems of people commiting crimes while on/obtaining drugs. But, then, there's the point: if your drug use is hurting other people, your actions are already a crime. It can be useful, sometimes, to criminalize a harmless behavior that usually leads to harmful behavior if it would be impractical to enforce laws agains the harmful behavior. But its much easier to enforce laws against theft or starting fights than against possession of small quantities of a substance. Apart from those outliers I listed above, the only common negative result to people other than the user is their lack of productivity and the economic implications of that. And even of those outliers, most users are not addicts and do not hurt others with their drug use.
  - mrob 11y ago
    Alcohol is just as much an outlier in terms of social problems as those you listed.
- baddox 11y ago
  "Your rights end where someone else's begin" is a reasonable rule of thumb, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny without a much more specific theory of rights. An obvious example is that many people consider things like health care, a living wage, shelter, food, etc. to be human rights, in which case one could argue that putting a competitor out of business simply by offering a better/cheaper product more efficiently violates the rights of the losing competitor.
  - LesZedCB 11y ago
    Maybe it really is true that upholding our current economic structure is a violation of human rights? As Proudhon said, "Property is theft!"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
    - baddox 11y ago
      I can certainly entertain the suggestion of an antipropertarian society. I don't actually think it would work, but at least it's an intellectually consistent political philosophy, unlike most modern takes on democratic socialism.
      - LesZedCB 11y ago
        Well, it would have to be a better alternative than what we have now. Though I think the massive inequality globally and nationally is enough to say it needs to happen. I'm not sure what you mean by modern takes on democratic socialism. Sanders is most certainly not a socialist, if that's what you mean, despite being for a progressive welfare state. If one upholds private property rights, they are not a socialist. Democratic socialism simply is socialism where socialist economic structure is ushered in by means of the bourgeois democratic system as opposed to (or at least in unison with) revolutionary movements.
        baddox 11y ago
        > Well, it would have to be a better alternative than what we have now. That's one issue. Another is having a feasible way to transition from what we have now. The latter is probably the trickier one. > I'm not sure what you mean by modern takes on democratic socialism. Sanders is most certainly not a socialist, if that's what you mean, despite being for a progressive welfare state. I mean democratic socialism roughly as Sanders describes it, although there's obviously a big range even within the modern definition. So yes, just western democracy with the government doing lots of social programs. Not real socialism.
atom-morgan 11y ago
Yes, of course. Telling me what I can and can't put into my own body (not even considering how subjective and arbitrary drug laws are) is a violation of my rights. As long as I don't hurt or harm anyone else, I should be free to use drugs even if I can't pick it up at Walgreens.
- rosser 11y ago
  As long as I don't hurt or harm anyone else... Does your definition of "harm" include the costs that society is forced to bear for any treatment you might require? (And, no, "I have health insurance" isn't an adequate response to that question. When your health coverage pays for rehab or whatever, my premiums go up, too.) I maintain that "externalized costs" can be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Under a strict interpretation of that ethos, you shouldn't get to unilaterally impose upon me any costs that I wouldn't otherwise have been obligated to bear, had you not engaged in $behavior.
  - x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
    That same argument applies to alcohol, tobacco, or a poor diet, which likely incur even higher externalized costs. Do you believe we should criminalize those, too?
    - rosser 11y ago
      No. Ultimately, as I mentioned in my reply to one of your comment's siblings, I'm in the single-payer healthcare camp. From "Libertarian" premises, however, the solution to those costs is that smokers, drinkers, and people who eat poorly should pay higher healthcare premiums to offset the increased costs they incur. The problem with that, of course (and a big part of why I'm pro-single-payer) is that people who eat poorly, for example, are disproportionately poor, themselves. It turns out, it's expensive, in terms of time and/or money, to eat healthily, and the poor, especially the working poor, tend not to have one or both of those to spare.
    - 0max 11y ago
      You could even add driving a car to that list as well.
baddox 11y ago
Yes, but there are complications. Two obvious complications are that the purchaser may not be considered to be consenting if they are not aware of the health risks of a product they're purchasing, or if they have a physical dependency.
- cobalt 11y ago
  so?
millstone 11y ago
Can an addict give consent? Addiction is coercion.
- RIMR 11y ago
  Should we throw the addict in jail then? How about the mentally ill? They have as little control over themselves as the addict does. Shall we throw them in jail too?
  - millstone 11y ago
    Of course not. Being coerced is not a crime.
- yoplait_ 11y ago
  drugs do not necessarily cause addiction. I would be ok making drugs illegal to addicts (including alcohol).
- imgabe 11y ago
  Addicts can and do quit their addictions. In my experience, and there is starting to be some evidence to back this up [1], addiction is usually a symptom of a larger problem. People choose drugs or gambling or obsessively playing video games to escape from something else. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/14443179...
- adrusi 11y ago
  OK, but then what cigarettes, which are more highly addictive than even cocaine, or alcohol, addiction to which is quite damaging to the economy and public safety, and leads to domestic violence? And what about foods containing refined sugar, which regarding consent demonstrates all the relevant features of addiction? What about microtransaction-based games and stuff like daily fantasy, which take advantage of the depressed? When an addict is buying drugs while sober, they are giving consent. Just because they don't have a choice of not buying the drugs doesn't mean they can't consent to the transaction. I can't choose to not buy food. I can't choose to not pay rent.
SilasX 11y ago
I don't think it generalizes to full legalization, but (as I've long said), it does justify a right to some sort of "padded room use" exception. That is, there should be some legal, monitored route to ensure that: a) You can use the drug if seek it out (very limited advertising). b) You will be monitored to make sure you don't go out in public in a disoriented or dangerous state. c) You will be aware of and have easy access to treatment programs if you are showing signs of addiction. Such facilities would have to keep an insurance policy against harms resulting from the clients' usage, including e.g. pre-funding of rehab for some percentage of them. To the extent that most governments don't allow anything like this, that is the rights violation.
- mathattack 11y ago
  I'm not sure that such facilities could be insurable at any reasonable price. How can you have Heroin or other heavy drugs without eventual fatalities? Families could sue for negligence no matter what rights the users sign away. Very complicated topic.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    How can you have alcohol without eventual fatalities? Same way that a bar's liability insurance covers negligence regarding e.g. drunk patrons they serve.
    - mathattack 11y ago
      Good point. Am I naive in thinking there are more fatalities for heroin than alcohol?

hosh 11y ago

The section of the article discussing paternalism, infantilization, has some interesting connection with that other article on HN, about debunking the ego-depletion theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239674 I can easily see the ego-depletion theory being used as a basis for the idea that people just can't control themselves. Though the problem is also that drug policy makers have been ignoring research. The current argument, as brought up in the interview, is that "illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal."

6stringmerc 11y ago

When an undergrad, I had access to a quite impressive religious library affiliated with a quite reputable protestant theology school. As part of the undergrad criteria, taking a religious course of some sort was mandatory to achieve graduation. I picked something along the lines of Chirstianity and Public Life, and eventually needed a topic for a research essay for the course. Through my research, what I can definitively state is that numerous psychoactive substances - drugs, if you will - are mentioned by and incorporated into nearly every noteworthy world religion in some way, shape, or form. Yes, mostly for the use of the 'visionary' class like the priests and shamans, but it's all right there in the texts that such things had a legitimate role in the respective religious pursuits. I recall a couple cases regarding Native Tribal rights with psychoactives, but those were very limited in scope in the grand scheme of things. Thus, overall I came to the conclusion that US drug laws are fundamentally at odds with the notion of religious freedom from persecution. I plan on doing nothing of importance with this perpsective however. It's just one of those situations that make me go pause and say "Huh, how about that."

mirimir 11y ago

Anti-drug laws plainly violate human rights. And so they breed general disrespect for the law.

Retric 11y ago

Human Rights are arbitrary. So, the only question is what people agree that it means; making this a rather circular justification for anything. EX: Is breathing air free from pollution a human right?

LesZedCB 11y ago
FWIW, I would take the strong stance that it damn well should be.
- achamayou 11y ago
  But what's pollution-free? Taken to the extreme, this implies nobody can drive, or light a camp fire for that matter. It's all about quantity, and balancing the conflicting freedoms of individuals. Your right to breathe perfectly clean air goes against my right to produce energy and heat myself or go places. Likewise, there's a general consensus that the state can detain you temporarily. It's an affront to the freedom of the person detained, but most individuals agree that it's necessary to preserve their freedom to go about safely and without fear of violence. There's a process around it, to try and balance the rights on both sides. It's all in the details and the implementation.
cubano 11y ago
The question seems to be then...who the hell is for breathing polluted air, and who would be stupid enough to want to deny others that right?
_snydly 11y ago
> So, the only question is what people agree that it means The details make this more complicated, so we're never going to agree. Just like most people agreeing that alcohol okay, but heroin isn't, we'd have to decide what's "free from pollution"? Exactly how many lead atoms/day is okay? And are smokers violating your human rights? Endless arguments :-/

nefitty 11y ago

> The individual shouldn’t be required to prove that these substances are risk-free, because few things in life are—rather it should be up to the state to prove, with scientific evidence, that the risks justify the damage to our civil liberties. In the absence of that, it is impossible that say that this is truly a free society. It's fascinating that the European Convention on Human Rights has a section on freedom of thought. That is such a radical idea, especially in the face of the strength of tradition in Western countries. Looking at this problem from the 6-dimensional moral foundation theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_six_foundations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_s...), I see the main factors holding these drugs hostage to be the particularly conservative values of deference to authority (they're bad because they're illegal) and the desire for group purity (only criminals and bums use drugs, not us good people). A good place to start is what Walsh outlines, scrutinizing the implications for liberty that these prohibitions have. I think wider public discourse would move us closer toward more rational laws. If people see that normal, well-adjusted, successful people (Silicon Valley kids, how's that microdosing going?) use drugs without problems, and also hear from people in authority that they are safer than believed to be in the past, we might make leeway. We have to figure out how to hit as many of those six dimensions as possible to move things forward.

awinter-py 11y ago
And you can't accurately perceive the problem in 6 dimensions without substantial help from LSD. So, QED.

gorpomon 11y ago

It's heart breaking watching the UK walk further and further away from liberalism.

GordonS 11y ago
The USA has surely been the biggest progenitor of the 'war on drugs', and yet even they are, state by state, legalising cannabis. At a time when other countries are finally seeing the folly of fighting an unwinnable 'war', it is even more ludicrous that the UK should continue down this path (e.g. the Psychoactive Substances Bill which comes into effect in April).

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Yes they do, and I hope to live to the day when people behind these laws are violated in return, at least the memory of them.

panzagl 11y ago

Are there laws which prohibit the actual taking of drugs? I thought they all targeted manufacture, distribution, and sale, which are definitely in the purview of the state to limit. I guess simple possession would be the grey area here, but there are plenty of other substances whose possession is regulated as well.

adrusi 11y ago
If you completely eliminate all avenues to acquiring something, then you're taking away the right to have or use it. Imagine if the government had banned the manufacture, distribution and sale of printing presses. Also possession of drugs is hardly a gray area. It's quite explicitly illegal in all countries but a few.

awinter-py 11y ago

Don't all restrictive laws by their definition violate human rights? 'Rights' is the sphere of activity the law agrees not to encroach. This question is tautological. Better question -- given that legalizing psychedelics will make 1% of us healthier or better at our jobs at the cost of doubling the pedestrian strike rate in large cities, do metropolitan mayors want to make that trade?

arprocter 11y ago

The piece mentions David Nutt who was infamously fired by the British government for his use of inconvenient facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_positions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_position...

GordonS 11y ago
Yes, it's sad, but drug policy in the UK is not defined based on evidence - rather, it seems to be based on the whims of politicians who understand very little about the drugs that they outlaw.

tn13 11y ago

I am Indian Hindu and I find the western world's laws (which influence others) w.r.t. drugs nothing but racist and prejudiced. Of course it is none of my business how UK/US manage their own country but it is really sad to see that those colonial laws are enforced in my home country and has altered perception of Indians so far away from their roots. I think if start talking about Drug prohibition laws in the perspective of human freedom it is much easier for people like me to go back to my roots. Marijuana and few other forms of mind altering substances have been like a stepping stone towards spiritual progress in several sects of Hinduism and tribal practices. Drugs like Marijuana were often used to those who started off on the tantra path to make them understand that there is more to human mind than they might have thought. Once the mind is opened the students can explore more possibilities and realities. Here is an excellent article by Indologist Dr. Elst

justsaysmthng 11y ago

Psychedelics or entheogens are extremely dangerous for the establishment, because they (might) affect the user's worldview and ultimately users end up challenging the "truths" that the establishment so dearly spoon fed them since they were born. They start to question authority... of the the State, of the Church, of the Justice system, of core societal values... These substances alter the user's brains in unpredictable ways - generating deviant art, music, literature, movies, comedy! Fuck no. Ban everything. Throw them in jails. Dirty hippies. Get jobs. Go to work. Obey. Consume. Repeat. And when the ideology needs fresh blood, send your children to war. Let them die in battle, like real men. The establishment doesn't care about your human rights, never has. They - the makers and players of the game - care about their own well being, driven by the desire to control everything combined with the fear of losing it all. When enough people start playing this game, war becomes inevitable. Human rights don't apply on the battlefield. This sickness can be treated or prevented with the "medicine for the soul".. If wearing glasses is a human right, then using entheogens should also be a human right.

Retra 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the internet has done far more for changing peoples' worldview than drugs ever have or could. Actually, I find it completely unrealistic that drug use would change anything at all in the realm of what you're talking about. I mean, none of what you've said requires drugs in any way, and most people are perfectly capable in seeing a billion faults in the status quo without them.
- justsaysmthng 11y ago
  You're pretty sure, but I think you're not seeing the bigger picture. Most of those bands that have enhanced the lives of everyone (society) over the years? Really high.. Would the world still be around if it weren't for the cultural revolution of the '60s - during the height of the cold war, with slogans like "make love not war" and "Imagine" ? Possibly not. The Internet ? Did you know that Doug Engelbart and many other engineers working on the ARPANet were also participating in LSD experiments ? Look it up, it's out there on the Internet. The Internet could have been another secret military technology, you know... It took some acid heads to imagine the whole world "turned on and tuned in". So there was Steve Jobs and his team of psychonauts who jumped in to make that vision real. Check out Google's first ever doodle. Do you notice the Burning Man logo in it ? I guess Larry and Sergey were so inspired by the psychedelic festival that they decided to use it as their startup's logo. 3D animation, Pixar, ILM, Virtual Reality ? Damn hippies. That's the most interesting part about psychedelics is that the trip never ends.. Once you take it, it changes you forever - you might be sober, but the psychedelic experience goes on - in what you say, what you do, what you sing... I could go on and on, but again - you can look these things up yourself.