5 ms·

I believe it. Drug liberalization advocacy suffers from at least two flaws: the failure to understand the instructive dimension of law, and naïveté concerning t

I believe it. Drug liberalization advocacy suffers from at least two flaws: the failure to understand the instructive dimension of law, and naïveté concerning the harm drugs cause and the power of personal responsibility when drugs enter the mix in light of human frailty. In the first case, one end of the law is to teach good behavior by punishing what is bad, and perhaps incentivizing what is good. Drugs are opposed to the objective human good, and gravely so, for one, because they cripple the effective exercise of reason. Any attack on reason of this kind is gravely immoral, and constitutes a direct assault on human flourishing and what is most essential to human beings. The result is the degradation of the human person and the degeneration of society. The common good suffers greatly, as you have described, and since the primary purpose of law and the governments that make law is to guard the common good, it falls to governments to criminalize and regulate drug availability and use. In the second case, ask yourself why anyone takes drugs. Unhealthy curiosity. Boredom. Escapism. Mental illness. There is no legitimate reason for drug liberalization as there is no legitimate reason to take hard narcotics recreationally (I emphasize that word because there is a place for regulated use in the context of medicine under the principle of double effect). Liberalization lowers the barrier of entry by signaling that using narcotics is no big deal. And yet it is a big deal. The instructive dimension of the law, by penalizing use, helps counteract the foolishness and frailty of human beings that would bring ruin to such people and those around them. Libertarian anthropology does not stand a chance in the face of reality. (Obviously, plenty of substances are psychoactive, and I do not propose a categorical ban on everything from cough medicine to cigars to Merlot to coffee. I am no teetotaler. We know what kind of drug use is problematic when we say “doing drugs”. Prudent regulation that takes into account a number of factors like the severity and nature of chronic and acute harm, how addictive something is and its potential for abuse, dosage, etc. It’s one thing to chew on a coca leaf, another to snort 30 mg of powder.)

nextaccountic 3y ago
> Drugs are opposed to the objective human good, and gravely so, for one, because they cripple the effective exercise of reason. This blanket statement heavily depends on which specific drug we are talking about. Or rather, do you feel the same way about alcohol and nicotine?
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Yes obviously, for alcohol at least.
temporarely 3y ago
Regrettable that you are not being engaged in a verbalized discussion. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, as someone who habitually uses pot and tobacco and recognizes the harmful effects of these substances. At least society is now fully onboard in recognizing the harm of habitual tobacco use. Pot is a mixed bag, there is some good in it but it is possible that its harm exceeds its benefits. It is certainly addictive, in my experience. It is not easy at all to stop. That said, I've always found the punitive legal measures against pot to have been highly excessive and possibly motivated by considerations other than public health, as its roots have clear racist ('Reefer madness') dimensions. These days however I am rather alarmed at the promotion of pot as a benign substance. I have seriously wondered if its liberalization is a means at social pacification (ala Victory Gin of 1984) given the grave distortions that have manifested in Western society, specially in the economic dimension. There is money to be made and the plebes now have a outlet that keeps them content. It is not clear to me if law in fact incentivizes good behavior. In general my view on these matters -- social architecture -- is that form can not engender meaning. Meaning needs to be project into form, in the sense of it being an expression of collective understanding. This brings up the matter of pedagogical aspect of social order, to wit, your views would be entirely orthodox in a strict patriarchal societal order. And our society is no longer that, as you must know. ~ "The most important things about beliefs are whether they are true. The most important thing about motives is whether they are good." I saw this on your profile page. What is necessary is that actions are timely and true. As to "good", I hope we agree that what is true is by definition good (if timely) and what is good can not possibly be false or untimely. So in my opinion, it suffices to say "Be timely, be true".
int_19h 3y ago
You know what cripples the effective exercise of reason more than any drug? Living in a society that is organized in extremely unreasonable ways, yet one has to accept and actively participate in it because that's the only way to keep on living. Perhaps start there when considering the reasons for drug use...
- surfingdino 3y ago
  Alternative societies are available worldwide, so... maybe try them?
  - int_19h 3y ago
    The vast majority of people worldwide have no ability to move away from the society to which they are born, no matter how oppressive. I did immigrate away from my country of origin, and I am much better for it, but I was insanely privileged to have this opportunity, and many people whom I know from back there are not so lucky.
    - larksimian 3y ago
      This is absurdly wrong. Most immigrants are poor people entering their new societies at the very bottom, not hipster digital nomads. Sometimes they are lower middle class in their own societies, but often they are pretty much at the bottom at home as well. For whatever reason the west fails to successfully socialize an unacceptably large portion of the native born population.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        A train engineer with decades of experience moved to the US when the war in Ukraine started. The job she could get here was as a nanny, watching children in her extended community, and even that was half a favor.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        You need to consider the distinction between legal and illegal immigration for starters. Most legal immigrants are reasonably well off in their society of origin - enough so to afford the legal process (which is not cheap). And yes, immigrants generally tend to end up lower on the social hierarchy in their new society as compared to the old one, but how is that relevant to what I wrote?

nextaccountic 3y ago

> Drugs are opposed to the objective human good, and gravely so, for one, because they cripple the effective exercise of reason. This blanket statement heavily depends on which specific drug we are talking about. Or rather, do you feel the same way about alcohol and nicotine?

edgyquant 3y ago
Yes obviously, for alcohol at least.

temporarely 3y ago

Regrettable that you are not being engaged in a verbalized discussion. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, as someone who habitually uses pot and tobacco and recognizes the harmful effects of these substances. At least society is now fully onboard in recognizing the harm of habitual tobacco use. Pot is a mixed bag, there is some good in it but it is possible that its harm exceeds its benefits. It is certainly addictive, in my experience. It is not easy at all to stop. That said, I've always found the punitive legal measures against pot to have been highly excessive and possibly motivated by considerations other than public health, as its roots have clear racist ('Reefer madness') dimensions. These days however I am rather alarmed at the promotion of pot as a benign substance. I have seriously wondered if its liberalization is a means at social pacification (ala Victory Gin of 1984) given the grave distortions that have manifested in Western society, specially in the economic dimension. There is money to be made and the plebes now have a outlet that keeps them content. It is not clear to me if law in fact incentivizes good behavior. In general my view on these matters -- social architecture -- is that form can not engender meaning. Meaning needs to be project into form, in the sense of it being an expression of collective understanding. This brings up the matter of pedagogical aspect of social order, to wit, your views would be entirely orthodox in a strict patriarchal societal order. And our society is no longer that, as you must know. ~ "The most important things about beliefs are whether they are true. The most important thing about motives is whether they are good." I saw this on your profile page. What is necessary is that actions are timely and true. As to "good", I hope we agree that what is true is by definition good (if timely) and what is good can not possibly be false or untimely. So in my opinion, it suffices to say "Be timely, be true".

int_19h 3y ago

You know what cripples the effective exercise of reason more than any drug? Living in a society that is organized in extremely unreasonable ways, yet one has to accept and actively participate in it because that's the only way to keep on living. Perhaps start there when considering the reasons for drug use...

surfingdino 3y ago
Alternative societies are available worldwide, so... maybe try them?
- int_19h 3y ago
  The vast majority of people worldwide have no ability to move away from the society to which they are born, no matter how oppressive. I did immigrate away from my country of origin, and I am much better for it, but I was insanely privileged to have this opportunity, and many people whom I know from back there are not so lucky.
  - larksimian 3y ago
    This is absurdly wrong. Most immigrants are poor people entering their new societies at the very bottom, not hipster digital nomads. Sometimes they are lower middle class in their own societies, but often they are pretty much at the bottom at home as well. For whatever reason the west fails to successfully socialize an unacceptably large portion of the native born population.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      A train engineer with decades of experience moved to the US when the war in Ukraine started. The job she could get here was as a nanny, watching children in her extended community, and even that was half a favor.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      You need to consider the distinction between legal and illegal immigration for starters. Most legal immigrants are reasonably well off in their society of origin - enough so to afford the legal process (which is not cheap). And yes, immigrants generally tend to end up lower on the social hierarchy in their new society as compared to the old one, but how is that relevant to what I wrote?