6 ms·

Appropriate punishmments, which drugs should be illegal and under what circumstances is a totally different area of discussion but the general attitude of most

by jlos 10y ago

Appropriate punishmments, which drugs should be illegal and under what circumstances is a totally different area of discussion but the general attitude of most societies to the recreation use of more powerful drugs is quite sensible. Drug use is also nearly universally accepted in medical circumstances so we aren't really all that polarized. >> Why is nearly every culture against it Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society and especially a liberal democracy. Freedom, to the extent we have it, requires that we can govern ourselves. >> People are always going to take drugs, and by and large, they are harmless This is an argument that has never made much sense to me. People are always going to commit every crime. Laws exist because people will break them. And laws are effective deterents if the penalties are appropriately harsh. Consider that alcohol consumption took almost a generation to return to its pre-prohibition levels (around the 60's-70s'). And most illegal drugs are demonstratively not harmless, to the point its almost axiomatic.

BookmarkSaver 10y ago
I think that the issue is that there is a fundamental difference in the entire view of drugs between people in society, one that is so large that it is nearly impossible to see across. This is what he is referring to. We permit, encourage or even glorify countless destructive, risky, or dangerous forms of behavior, including various legal mind altering substances. Alcoholism is known to be a serious issue, but alcohol and the vast ways that it is treated in our culture is widely accepted and encouraged. We allow extreme sports, or even "traditional" sports like gymnastics, most of us drive every day in conditions that should be objectively terrifying, we allow recreational firearm activities in most countries, smoking is legal, etc. But when it comes to drug use we put this huge social stigma on somewhat arbitrary substances, we impose significant punishments, we potentially ruin people's lives in the legal system, and all of this is so ingrained in our culture that even considering alternative systems is so radical that it seems like a fantasy. It's bizarre that such normal behavior is so incredibly reviled, when almost all of the negative consequences of it are due to the culture and legal system surrounding it rather than any physiological facts.
steiger 10y ago
>>>> Why is nearly every culture against it >> Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society and especially a liberal democracy. Freedom, to the extent we have it, requires that we can govern ourselves. Yes, but we tolerate alcohol. We tolerate getting high - but we are selective about which drugs you can get high on. If we tolerate alcohol, so why don't we tolerate cannabis, psychedelics and other "soft drugs"? It's because of misinformation, fear, taboo and stigma. >>>> People are always going to take drugs, and by and large, they are harmless >> This is an argument that has never made much sense to me. People are always going to commit every crime. Laws exist because people will break them. And laws are effective deterents if the penalties are appropriately harsh. Consider that alcohol consumption took almost a generation to return to its pre-prohibition levels (around the 60's-70s'). But if you criminalise behavior that does not really harm anyone else but yourself (at most), you're inventing a victimless crime. Victimless crimes do nothing to help society - in fact, it degrades society, marginalizes and criminalizes otherwise respectable citizens, and in case of drug prohibition, guarantees that drug money goes to black market, which in turn potentially increase violent, real crime.
- jlos 10y ago
  What particular drugs should stigmatized is another discussion and there are no doubt many inconsistencies in our legal system. However, that some drugs should be stigmatized is reasonable and what I was suggesting. >> but if you criminalise behavior that does not really harm anyone else but yourself (at most), you're inventing a victimless crime This is where I would push back a bit and say that line of reasoning is too individualistic. Again, I'm not drawing lines between substances (that is another discussion) but I suggest that substances which significantly diminish your reasoning capacities and self-control do harm society. The entire project of democracy requires self-governing citizens. It only makes sense that if we want to have the freedom to live as we see fit we must be able to control ourselves. If a drug causes a person loose their reasoning capacities and self-control, as many do, they do damage society. Individuals who take such drugs are not respectable citizens because they are forfeiting a primary civic duty of self-control. Again, because I'm staking out a narrow piece of ground here, I am not saying at this point which drugs ought to fall into the criminal category. Nor am I denying there are inconsistencies and perverse incentives in our existing system. I'm simply arguing that its reasonable for some drugs to be outlawed.
pmoriarty 10y ago
"Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society" Are you saying you think sobriety and self-control at all times by everyone is essential to a functioning society? If so, that's clearly false for virtually every functioning society. The widespread use of alcohol in many functioning societies is the most obvious counterexample. On the other hand, if you are saying that you think sobriety and self-control sometimes and by some people is essential to a functioning society, then I don't think you'd find many people disagree. Most societies where drug use is rampant (and that's pretty much every society) consists of some people who are sober some of the time, some who use drugs some of the time, and some (usually sick or dying) who use drugs all of the time, though the proportion varies widely depending on your definition of "drug" (ie. is chocolate, tea, and coffee to be drugs? do you consider legal, prescription or over the counter medications as drugs?) On the issue of self-control: though widely considered to be essential in many western societies, in some other societies the loss of control is highly valued. I'm thinking primarily of some religious contexts. For example, glossalalia in some Christian sects, possession in Voodoo, etc. In all of these cases, self-control is deliberately relinquished to another -- usually to a god. This loss of self-control is not seen to be negative, but rather to be highly positive and desirable. Drug use also has very deep roots in religion, from the role of alcohol in Judeo-Christian religions and the various "pagan cults" that preceded them, to an enormous variety of other drugs in various indigenous cultures around the world. Once again, the societies in which these drugs are used in religious contexts consider such drug use to be very positive, and the societies of which they're part tend to do quite well -- well, if you discount the destruction brought on to them by military, economic, and cultural invasion from other, more technologically advanced societies.
lawpoop 10y ago
Your entire response is belied by the fact that alcohol is legal-- in fact, celebrated-- in western societies. It's even a religious sacrament (communion wine, seder wine). Nutt found that alcohol _the most harmful drug_ -- even more harmful than meth, crack and heroin-- far more harmful than ecstasy, marijuana, magic musrooms, LSD, etc. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...
- DanHulton 10y ago
  Indeed, the "harm" from most illegal drugs tends not to come from the drug itself, but from the circumstances surrounding its illegality. The crime, the self-neglect, the diseases from filthy needles/etc all stem from the fact that you can't partake in polite society. Compare the homeless wino to the homeless heroin user and contrast the affluent scotch drinkers and tokers (in countries and states where it's legal). The illegality of it makes a world of difference.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Plenty of e.g. Affluent coke addicts and many more casual users as well. It being illegal adds to the allure for some.
    - querulous 10y ago
      this isn't limited to coke. most people would be shocked b how many functional heroin, meth and crack users there are in general, using drugs isn't illegal. using drugs and not being wealthy enough to insulate yourself from the consequences of that choice is what is illegal
      - __jal 10y ago
        Yes. I know two functional junkies. One was born into a lot of wealth, the other isn't insanely rich, but is comfortable and no longer has to work. Your last sentence is exactly right. Neither of them will ever face legal action. But this is no different than most other things in the US (and elsewhere, usually to a lesser extent): law-enforcement-related outcomes react strongly to the presence of wealth.
pharrington 10y ago
Post your comprehensive chart of legal and illegal drugs. The reasoning for your foundational argument must be precise.
ck425 10y ago
>> And laws are effective deterents if the penalties are appropriately harsh. Except their not. There's vast bodies of research suggesting the war on drugs has been largely ineffective and encouraged a massive amount of related crime. If your focus is on reduction criminalization is proven to be ineffective. The major point of the article is that to reduce drug use your most effective at reduce the societal problems that lead to drug use.
andrei_says_ 10y ago
> Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society and especially a liberal democracy. Freedom, to the extent we have it, requires that we can govern ourselves. Connecting sobriety to prohibition stands on the premise that people need a nanny state to decide what they are allowed to put in their bodies. And on the premise that prohibition has a positive effect. I don't believe in the first one and am very open to seeing any proof of drug prohibition resulting in sobriety. What I can see clearly as it is very well documented, is the prohibition-related incarceration (of mostly people whom the police or government wants incarcerated anyways). http://november.org/graphs/Federal1914.gif http://november.org/graphs/Federal1914.gif Any proof of positive change caused by prohibition?

by jlos 10y ago

BookmarkSaver 10y ago

I think that the issue is that there is a fundamental difference in the entire view of drugs between people in society, one that is so large that it is nearly impossible to see across. This is what he is referring to. We permit, encourage or even glorify countless destructive, risky, or dangerous forms of behavior, including various legal mind altering substances. Alcoholism is known to be a serious issue, but alcohol and the vast ways that it is treated in our culture is widely accepted and encouraged. We allow extreme sports, or even "traditional" sports like gymnastics, most of us drive every day in conditions that should be objectively terrifying, we allow recreational firearm activities in most countries, smoking is legal, etc. But when it comes to drug use we put this huge social stigma on somewhat arbitrary substances, we impose significant punishments, we potentially ruin people's lives in the legal system, and all of this is so ingrained in our culture that even considering alternative systems is so radical that it seems like a fantasy. It's bizarre that such normal behavior is so incredibly reviled, when almost all of the negative consequences of it are due to the culture and legal system surrounding it rather than any physiological facts.

steiger 10y ago

>>>> Why is nearly every culture against it >> Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society and especially a liberal democracy. Freedom, to the extent we have it, requires that we can govern ourselves. Yes, but we tolerate alcohol. We tolerate getting high - but we are selective about which drugs you can get high on. If we tolerate alcohol, so why don't we tolerate cannabis, psychedelics and other "soft drugs"? It's because of misinformation, fear, taboo and stigma. >>>> People are always going to take drugs, and by and large, they are harmless >> This is an argument that has never made much sense to me. People are always going to commit every crime. Laws exist because people will break them. And laws are effective deterents if the penalties are appropriately harsh. Consider that alcohol consumption took almost a generation to return to its pre-prohibition levels (around the 60's-70s'). But if you criminalise behavior that does not really harm anyone else but yourself (at most), you're inventing a victimless crime. Victimless crimes do nothing to help society - in fact, it degrades society, marginalizes and criminalizes otherwise respectable citizens, and in case of drug prohibition, guarantees that drug money goes to black market, which in turn potentially increase violent, real crime.

jlos 10y ago
What particular drugs should stigmatized is another discussion and there are no doubt many inconsistencies in our legal system. However, that some drugs should be stigmatized is reasonable and what I was suggesting. >> but if you criminalise behavior that does not really harm anyone else but yourself (at most), you're inventing a victimless crime This is where I would push back a bit and say that line of reasoning is too individualistic. Again, I'm not drawing lines between substances (that is another discussion) but I suggest that substances which significantly diminish your reasoning capacities and self-control do harm society. The entire project of democracy requires self-governing citizens. It only makes sense that if we want to have the freedom to live as we see fit we must be able to control ourselves. If a drug causes a person loose their reasoning capacities and self-control, as many do, they do damage society. Individuals who take such drugs are not respectable citizens because they are forfeiting a primary civic duty of self-control. Again, because I'm staking out a narrow piece of ground here, I am not saying at this point which drugs ought to fall into the criminal category. Nor am I denying there are inconsistencies and perverse incentives in our existing system. I'm simply arguing that its reasonable for some drugs to be outlawed.

pmoriarty 10y ago

"Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society" Are you saying you think sobriety and self-control at all times by everyone is essential to a functioning society? If so, that's clearly false for virtually every functioning society. The widespread use of alcohol in many functioning societies is the most obvious counterexample. On the other hand, if you are saying that you think sobriety and self-control sometimes and by some people is essential to a functioning society, then I don't think you'd find many people disagree. Most societies where drug use is rampant (and that's pretty much every society) consists of some people who are sober some of the time, some who use drugs some of the time, and some (usually sick or dying) who use drugs all of the time, though the proportion varies widely depending on your definition of "drug" (ie. is chocolate, tea, and coffee to be drugs? do you consider legal, prescription or over the counter medications as drugs?) On the issue of self-control: though widely considered to be essential in many western societies, in some other societies the loss of control is highly valued. I'm thinking primarily of some religious contexts. For example, glossalalia in some Christian sects, possession in Voodoo, etc. In all of these cases, self-control is deliberately relinquished to another -- usually to a god. This loss of self-control is not seen to be negative, but rather to be highly positive and desirable. Drug use also has very deep roots in religion, from the role of alcohol in Judeo-Christian religions and the various "pagan cults" that preceded them, to an enormous variety of other drugs in various indigenous cultures around the world. Once again, the societies in which these drugs are used in religious contexts consider such drug use to be very positive, and the societies of which they're part tend to do quite well -- well, if you discount the destruction brought on to them by military, economic, and cultural invasion from other, more technologically advanced societies.

lawpoop 10y ago

Your entire response is belied by the fact that alcohol is legal-- in fact, celebrated-- in western societies. It's even a religious sacrament (communion wine, seder wine). Nutt found that alcohol _the most harmful drug_ -- even more harmful than meth, crack and heroin-- far more harmful than ecstasy, marijuana, magic musrooms, LSD, etc. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

DanHulton 10y ago
Indeed, the "harm" from most illegal drugs tends not to come from the drug itself, but from the circumstances surrounding its illegality. The crime, the self-neglect, the diseases from filthy needles/etc all stem from the fact that you can't partake in polite society. Compare the homeless wino to the homeless heroin user and contrast the affluent scotch drinkers and tokers (in countries and states where it's legal). The illegality of it makes a world of difference.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Plenty of e.g. Affluent coke addicts and many more casual users as well. It being illegal adds to the allure for some.
  - querulous 10y ago
    this isn't limited to coke. most people would be shocked b how many functional heroin, meth and crack users there are in general, using drugs isn't illegal. using drugs and not being wealthy enough to insulate yourself from the consequences of that choice is what is illegal
    - __jal 10y ago
      Yes. I know two functional junkies. One was born into a lot of wealth, the other isn't insanely rich, but is comfortable and no longer has to work. Your last sentence is exactly right. Neither of them will ever face legal action. But this is no different than most other things in the US (and elsewhere, usually to a lesser extent): law-enforcement-related outcomes react strongly to the presence of wealth.

pharrington 10y ago

Post your comprehensive chart of legal and illegal drugs. The reasoning for your foundational argument must be precise.

ck425 10y ago

>> And laws are effective deterents if the penalties are appropriately harsh. Except their not. There's vast bodies of research suggesting the war on drugs has been largely ineffective and encouraged a massive amount of related crime. If your focus is on reduction criminalization is proven to be ineffective. The major point of the article is that to reduce drug use your most effective at reduce the societal problems that lead to drug use.

andrei_says_ 10y ago

> Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society and especially a liberal democracy. Freedom, to the extent we have it, requires that we can govern ourselves. Connecting sobriety to prohibition stands on the premise that people need a nanny state to decide what they are allowed to put in their bodies. And on the premise that prohibition has a positive effect. I don't believe in the first one and am very open to seeing any proof of drug prohibition resulting in sobriety. What I can see clearly as it is very well documented, is the prohibition-related incarceration (of mostly people whom the police or government wants incarcerated anyways). http://november.org/graphs/Federal1914.gif http://november.org/graphs/Federal1914.gif Any proof of positive change caused by prohibition?