6 ms·

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 bo

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?

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?