4 ms·

"Unfortunately, nothing about substance abuse is simple." I think that's the problem with criminalizing personal drug use; treating it as simply a crime.

mellavora 12y ago
The problem is that turning actions which cause no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm into crimes is perversion of law. The problem is using criminal justice system to attack medical issues is a perversion of law. A perverse law has perverse effects. We've created massive organized crime gangs by criminalizing things which should be legal. I like to tease the Swedes. They thought that alcohol was such a social ill that only a state-run monopoly should be allowed to sell it (so no advertising). The corollary is that they thought other drugs were so bad that only criminal gangs should be allowed to sell them.
- mellavora 12y ago
  Harm principle refers to a theory of crime that an action can only be banned if it causes harm to someone. The principle ... says that harmful actions are the only ones that can be banned. The harm principle simply sets a minimal standard for what sorts of actions a liberal can justifiably prohibit. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm-principle/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm-principle/
- kylestlb 12y ago
  I studied abroad in Sweden and know the Systembolaget very well :)
- rayiner 12y ago
  > The problem is that turning actions which cause no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm into crimes is perversion of law Drug use does harm. It harms users and it harms their families. The harms do not cease to be harms just because they're self-inflicted. Nor do they cease to be harms just because some countries have responded with legal regimes that are arguably worse than the problem.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    The harms are much worse because of criminalisation. Refusal to provide clean needles, injection clinics, and safe needle disposal bins causes harm to low wage cleaners who risk needle stick injuries when addicts use toilet stalls to inject drugs. About one third to one half of acquisitive crime is to fund drug use. That could be drastically reduced by treating drug addiction as the public health problem that it is, rather than as a criminal justice problem. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of-acquisitive-crime-caused-by-class-a-drug-users-in-the-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of... Illegal drugs are sold by criminal gangs. These gangs rely on the illegality of drugs to make a profit. Legalising drugs would drastically reduce the influence of these gangs. Keeping drugs illegal doesn't seem to be working.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Your argument that we should treat drug addiction as a "public health problem" is inconsistent with mellavora's assertion that drug use "cause[s] no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm."
      - deelowe 12y ago
        The argument typically isn't that we should treat drug use as a health problem. That would have quite some odd effects on the medical field, if that were true. Drug addiction should be treated as a health issue. I'd actually go as far as saying "uncontrolled" should be added to that statement. I'm pretty pretty damn addicted to coffee, but don't think I need to go see counseling about it. Treating everything like it's black and white is what got us into this mess.
  - deelowe 12y ago
    Irresponsibility and malice cause harm. There are many actions an individual could take that may harm people close to them. That's life, but the actions themselves aren't the issue. There's nothing inherent to drug usage that is harmful to others, unlike say, violence. In egregious instances of drug use where there is harmful effects like mistreating children, there are already laws to cover those. Those laws, again, are intended to address irresponsibility or malicious intent. If a single person with no children decides to do drugs every now and then, but otherwise lives a normal life, what harm as been done? Heck, even if that person is married and has children, what harm as been done? Drug use itself isn't directly harmful to others.

mellavora 12y ago

The problem is that turning actions which cause no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm into crimes is perversion of law. The problem is using criminal justice system to attack medical issues is a perversion of law. A perverse law has perverse effects. We've created massive organized crime gangs by criminalizing things which should be legal. I like to tease the Swedes. They thought that alcohol was such a social ill that only a state-run monopoly should be allowed to sell it (so no advertising). The corollary is that they thought other drugs were so bad that only criminal gangs should be allowed to sell them.

mellavora 12y ago
Harm principle refers to a theory of crime that an action can only be banned if it causes harm to someone. The principle ... says that harmful actions are the only ones that can be banned. The harm principle simply sets a minimal standard for what sorts of actions a liberal can justifiably prohibit. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm-principle/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm-principle/
kylestlb 12y ago
I studied abroad in Sweden and know the Systembolaget very well :)
rayiner 12y ago
> The problem is that turning actions which cause no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm into crimes is perversion of law Drug use does harm. It harms users and it harms their families. The harms do not cease to be harms just because they're self-inflicted. Nor do they cease to be harms just because some countries have responded with legal regimes that are arguably worse than the problem.
- DanBC 12y ago
  The harms are much worse because of criminalisation. Refusal to provide clean needles, injection clinics, and safe needle disposal bins causes harm to low wage cleaners who risk needle stick injuries when addicts use toilet stalls to inject drugs. About one third to one half of acquisitive crime is to fund drug use. That could be drastically reduced by treating drug addiction as the public health problem that it is, rather than as a criminal justice problem. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of-acquisitive-crime-caused-by-class-a-drug-users-in-the-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of... Illegal drugs are sold by criminal gangs. These gangs rely on the illegality of drugs to make a profit. Legalising drugs would drastically reduce the influence of these gangs. Keeping drugs illegal doesn't seem to be working.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Your argument that we should treat drug addiction as a "public health problem" is inconsistent with mellavora's assertion that drug use "cause[s] no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm."
    - deelowe 12y ago
      The argument typically isn't that we should treat drug use as a health problem. That would have quite some odd effects on the medical field, if that were true. Drug addiction should be treated as a health issue. I'd actually go as far as saying "uncontrolled" should be added to that statement. I'm pretty pretty damn addicted to coffee, but don't think I need to go see counseling about it. Treating everything like it's black and white is what got us into this mess.
- deelowe 12y ago
  Irresponsibility and malice cause harm. There are many actions an individual could take that may harm people close to them. That's life, but the actions themselves aren't the issue. There's nothing inherent to drug usage that is harmful to others, unlike say, violence. In egregious instances of drug use where there is harmful effects like mistreating children, there are already laws to cover those. Those laws, again, are intended to address irresponsibility or malicious intent. If a single person with no children decides to do drugs every now and then, but otherwise lives a normal life, what harm as been done? Heck, even if that person is married and has children, what harm as been done? Drug use itself isn't directly harmful to others.