Drug use and the law: a social discussion

Benj96

I’d like to start a discussion on the nature of law, social liberties/ freedom and drugs.

The law tends to blanket ban substances that it deems harmful or unsuitable for consumption by the general population. Yet, in some instances (such as tobacco and alcohol), despite the very obvious and clear evidence that these substances are invariably harmful to health, legislation permits their use.

I cannot help but be confounded by the gross contradiction that exists surrounding drug use for recreational purposes. It seems we have a mish-mash of opposing statements going on with regards to what is safe and what is not.

I’ve always been a strong believer in the allowance of maximal social liberty, but, that is no less underpinned by good education, awareness, vocalised public health concern/ fair warning and supportive infrastructure for those that are unable to steer clear of abusive relationships with drugs. That is to say, I believe the vast majority should be allowed to explore and consume what they wish as long as the necessary protective supports are in place to make that exploration as safe as possible.

A country that would exemplify such a view is Portugal. Portugal decriminalised most drug use and instead focused on rehabilitation and drug awareness services rather than penalty and social ostracism for their uncontrolled use. In Portugal an addict is not seen as a criminal but rather a person suffering a medical illness or drug dependence just as obesity is seen as a non criminal abuse of food intake, or sexual addiction a non criminal issue of libido.

The reason for my liberal outlook is that global society as a whole deems it reasonably acceptable to use alcohol and tobacco - the most socially/ health damaging drugs in existence but criminalises much less potent and damaging alternatives such as marijuana and psychedelics.

If we were to objectively classify drug legality based on harm, the first to be made illicit would be alcohol and tobacco. Their use is widespread and their impact on public health gravely more vast than any other substance.

However, the true nature of the argument is quite complex. Especially when we consider the line between prescription drugs and over the counter drugs. It is understood that the potential for abuse or harm for many prescription drugs deems them only suitable when applied by health professionals. If we were to legalise the recreational use of drugs then morphine, barbiturates and antidepressants would lend themselves to inevitable abuse by the public due to their addictive nature.

So all in all, while it is likely that most people would be able to willingly control their use of many currently illegal substances within a range considered responsible and functional, it is the fear generated by those cases that ruin lives that invoked the law, and forces its hand to oppress personal freedoms with regard to consumption of drugs.

So in essence, does legislation need reform? Is there a better way to allow people to safely use drugs? Or should they remain criminalised? And if so, what must be said of alcohol use or smoking?

Pfhorrest

So in essence, does legislation need reform? — Benj96

Yes.

Is there a better way to allow people to safely use drugs? Or — Benj96

Yes.

Or should they remain criminalised? And — Benj96

No.

And if so, what must be said of alcohol use or smoking? — Benj96

They should be treated the same as other drugs.

Pinprick

↪Benj96

I agree with @Pfhorrest, but I come to this conclusion through different means. I simply do not think that the government, any government, has the right to limit its citizens “freedom” unless doing so protects the property or health of others. I should have the sole authority of what I do with my body, and what I put into it.

Now, does that create a better society? I’m not entirely sure, but at least it’s consistent, and the responsibility for a persons health lies, rightly, with that person.

Jack Cummins

↪Pinprick

What I would like to see would be legal availability of psychedelics. But there would probably need to be the right environment.

I am definitely not taking about legal highs and ambiguous substances as I have come across people who got really ill and even ended up in ICUs on them. The problem is that makers of these substances were working around loopholes in the law and came up with toxic concoctions.

There is even some evidence that microdosing with Lsd can be good to improve depression. Perhaps we need a new psychedelic revolution, but preferably along the line of native culture vision quests.

Jack Cummins

↪Benj96

I sent my reply to Pinprick whereas you started the discussion.

I am writing from London, so drug culture may be different in other places. But what we have is very underground. A lot of people are smoking really heavy skunk and become psychotic.

Perhaps what we need is a culture accepting of some currently banned substances in which quality controlled products are available. But there is so much hostility towards CBD which barely has a trace of THC.

tim wood

I would like to compare this discussion to the requirement in some states that motorcyclists wear approved helmets, while in other states there is no requirement for motorcyclists to wear any helmet - and this certainly has echoes of seat-belt regulations.

I recognize the idea of freedom. I also recognize so-called license, and duty and responsibility. Most briefly, I hold that people who invoke some license (as differentiated from freedom, duty, responsibility, etc.) shall be legally presumed to have waived all claim or right whatsoever by themselves, their estates, or their survivors, to any benefit (whatsoever, in any form or way), that they do not themselves pay for.

If you ride without a helmet, for example, and suffer a significant brain injury, by riding without the helmet you made that problem altogether and completely and privately your own. Or in other words,, why should anyone else pay even one nickel because you deliberately, ignorantly, and stupidly chose to be stupid?

The risks and hazards of taking at least some drugs, while usually a more complicated subject, is of a kind. If you f*** yourself up, on what basis or ground do I have to pay anything, anywhere for it, because of it, or to fix it?

Admittedly it's not a simple topic. But imo there are some relatively simple considerations that are necessary parts of any discussion, and that are certainly not trumped by stupid claims of "freedom."

unenlightened

why should anyone else pay even one nickel because you deliberately, ignorantly, and stupidly chose to be stupid? — tim wood

Because everyone is sometimes deliberately, ignorantly, and stupidly stupid sometimes, although it is hard to think how one can be deliberately stupid and ignorantly stupid about the same thing at the same time. And also because sensibly sensible people have the sense to pay for there not to be rotting corpses littering the streets - even the corpses of stupidly stupid people become a health hazard and lower real-estate values.

Benkei

The risks and hazards of taking at least some drugs, while usually a more complicated subject, is of a kind. If you f*** yourself up, on what basis or ground do I have to pay anything, anywhere for it, because of it, or to fix it? — tim wood

If legalising drugs and helping addicts is cheaper for society than criminalising drug use, should we do it?

tim wood

↪unenlightened

↪Benkei

Both to the point. Which makes it a discussion.

Here's a way I think of it: various things and technologies put in the hands of individuals powers and capabilities beyond their own personal strengths. Guns and cars are good examples. Drugs also, in a way, and lots of other things. A feature of all is that with slight personal effort great energies are released, and if abused, great damage caused and great cost incurred. So the questions, how to adjudicate, how to pay, how and why to control. What is the claim of the individual on the purse of the community? What his claim on their tolerance, indulgence, forbearance?

And do individuals have duties, to themselves, families, communities?

Imo, the verdict is in on illegal drugs. Legalize and control. And that because apparently criminalizing illegal drugs doesn't work. But that's not an occasion for celebration because it recognizes failure and accepts and acknowledges facts in the face of the failure, of loss and cost.

although it is hard to think how one can be deliberately stupid and ignorantly stupid about the same thing at the same time. — unenlightened

It must be you've forgot your youth and the peculiar skills and abilities characteristic thereof. I achieved this multiple ways and multiple times, also lucky.

.

Benkei

Imo, the verdict is in on illegal drugs. Legalize and control. And that because apparently criminalizing illegal drugs doesn't work. But that's not an occasion for celebration because it recognizes failure and accepts and acknowledges facts in the face of the failure, of loss and cost. — tim wood

Is it fair to say this reduces the question to an economic problem?

tim wood

Is it fair to say this reduces the question to an economic problem? — Benkei

Depends on how far you want to reduce it, and to what end. Imo it's a full-spectrum problem. Moral/ethical, legal, social, family, health, and economic. Clearly money is an important part of some of these.

Hippyhead

As for drug reform, I would start here...

Nationalize the tobacco industry. This industry has been killing 400,000 Americans a year for decades, plus millions more around the world. It's a far too dangerous an enterprise to be in private hands.

Once nationalized, all the money which now goes to advertising and profit can be redirected to further public education and treatment. The product can be gradually re-engineered to be far less addictive.

Everyone who wants to can still smoke, but the only legal source is either the government, or growing tobacco on your own property for your own personal use.

Any private person or entity which attempts to go in to the tobacco business should receive the strictest possible penalty available under the law.

Be rational. Focus first on where the greatest harm is being committed.

400,000 dead Americans a year, deliberately killed for profit.

If we are unable to grasp why such carnage needs to be addressed with decisive action, there may be no point in concerning ourselves with any of the other drug issues, as in such a case we'd clearly be too stupid to have hope of any real success.

To put this in context, 400,000 Americans may die from the corona virus before the epidemic is behind us. But that's just once. Not every year for decades. We're very whipped up about the virus, as we should be. We should be even more whipped up about a much larger death toll.

Drug use and the law: a social discussion

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions