Regulation of Drugs

[howardahood]

One of the issues which have been puzzled me over the years is that of regulating dangerous drugs. I believe that the Objectivist position is that there should be no prohibition of drugs. Under this view, cocaine, heroin, and meth could be sold in Wal-Mart stores to any adult. I do not accept this idea.

I propose that individuals who use dangerous drugs in violation of the law not be penalized, but that it remain illegal to produce and sell dangerous, addictive drugs. Meth factories would continue to be illegal, but if an individual uses the substance, he will not be jailed or fined for doing so. Yes, you have a right to poison yourself if you wish, but you do not have a right to to harm others by selling substances which kill and which create physical dependence. I would add that the notion that people must be free to choose what they wish to ingest or inhale is oversimplified when applied to substances which create addiction. The heroin addict has lost much of his ability to choose; by definition he has a powerful urge to shoot up. He can refrain, but only with great effort and suffering.

I believe that allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. You cannot totally prevent the production, importation, and sale of narcotics, for example, but legal sanctions can greatly reduce these activities.

Objectivism concedes that there are dangerous activities and dangerous substances that can be forbidden, consistent with individual rights. Rand and Branden used the example of prohibiting fireworks factories in crowded neighborhoods or enforcing fire laws to prevent conflagrations. I don't think Rand would endorse the legal production and sale of plutonium or mustard gas by private citizens. I would put narcotics into the category of dangerous substances such as poisons which the government can properly restrict and regulate.

I would legalize marijuana because I do not believe it is addictive or deadly. Alcohol can be abused but is not dangerous or addictive for most people. Smoking tobacco can be regulated with respect to locations but I would not outlaw it. No one has died from smoking a single pack of cigerettes. The dangers of smoking build up over a period of many years. Private organizations such as the Heart Association are quite correct in trying to discourage people from smoking.

Much more could be said about this, but enough for now.

Howard Hood

[tjohnson]

I agree that "hard" drugs are a different ballgame than "soft" drugs and need to be handled differently. More and more jurisdictions are starting treatment centres where they actually hand out free heroin in clean needles in order to decriminalize the users and prevent the spread of disease. The cost of this is small compared to prohibition and law enforcement programs which don't work and actually promote organized crime. Some people can eventually get off the drug but even if they can't they can often get and keep a job while being addicted as long as they get their fixes. This philosophy would apply to all extremely addictive drugs.

As far as soft drugs it's obvious that they should simply be decriminalized but not legalized because I think it's a disgrace for governments to get tax revenue from peoples' unfortunate drug use. Also legalizing puts a "stamp of approval" on it, I think, and smoking pot is not something we should be encouraging our children to do, IMO.

[georgedonnelly]

I propose that individuals who use dangerous drugs in violation of the law not be penalized, but that it remain illegal to produce and sell dangerous, addictive drugs.

Absolutely. We MUST ban alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and cocoa NOW. Amen to that brother.

sarcasm OFF.

Seriously you have no business regulating what consenting adults do as long as no one's rights are violated.

[howardahood]

I cannot tell what you mean but I repeat that I am making a distinction between those who merely consume narcotics and those who import, produce, and sell them. I am not in favor in favor of jailing people for injecting heroin, but I would not allow it to be sold at Wal-Mart.

Howard Hood

I propose that individuals who use dangerous drugs in violation of the law not be penalized, but that it remain illegal to produce and sell dangerous, addictive drugs.

Absolutely. We MUST ban alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and cocoa NOW. Amen to that brother.

sarcasm OFF.

Seriously you have no business regulating what consenting adults do as long as no one's rights are violated.

[Brant Gaede]

Wal-Mart would be an excellent place to sell it. An addict could be sure of its purity and strength.

--Brant

I cannot tell what you mean but I repeat that I am making a distinction between those who merely consume narcotics and those who import, produce, and sell them. I am not in favor in favor of jailing people for injecting heroin, but I would not allow it to be sold at Wal-Mart.

Howard Hood

I propose that individuals who use dangerous drugs in violation of the law not be penalized, but that it remain illegal to produce and sell dangerous, addictive drugs.

Absolutely. We MUST ban alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and cocoa NOW. Amen to that brother.

sarcasm OFF.

Seriously you have no business regulating what consenting adults do as long as no one's rights are violated.

[georgedonnelly]

I cannot tell what you mean

Alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and maybe even cocoa (key ingredient of chocolate) could be considered dangerous addictive drugs. So according to you we have to ban their production ... right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I have seen drug dealers get 8 and 9 year olds addicted to crack cocaine so they will run the drugs to customers. In fact, I bought enough off of young kids when I was an addict. This is one of the few pangs of guilt I carry in my heart.

Kids don't go to jail. Adults do. So kids are better on the firing line for dealers and they are expendable. When one gets mutilated by the drug beyond repair, he becomes mentally incompetent and thrown on the wayside. There is always another to take his place. The addiction keeps him in line until then and always coming back for more.

This is definitely a violation of rights, no matter how you look at it.

Michael

[tjohnson]

George,

I have seen drug dealers get 8 and 9 year olds addicted to crack cocaine so they will run the drugs to customers. In fact, I bought enough off of young kids when I was an addict. This is one of the few pangs of guilt I carry in my heart.

Kids don't go to jail. Adults do. So kids are better on the firing line for dealers and they are expendable. When one gets mutilated by the drug beyond repair, he becomes mentally incompetent and thrown on the wayside. There is always another to take his place. The addiction keeps him in line until then and always coming back for more.

This is definitely a violation of rights, no matter how you look at it.

Michael

Right Michael, things get messy when there are children mixed in with the "consenting adults" eh?

[Backlighting]

Of course the alchoholics are in good shape. Their drug is legal and easily obtainable.

[sjw]

Howard Hood, by what right do you restrict someone from making and selling drugs? I'm speaking of the moral principle involved that you think they breached. For example, it is not fraud so long as the sellers disclose what it is they are selling. It's not theft. You're talking about using force against somebody, you'd better be able to name what force they've committed against someone else before you come barging in with your guns.

You mention something about someone not having choice. Clearly they at least had the choice to begin with. Just as someone who buys then recklessly races a motorcycle, gets in an accident, and becomes a vegetable, had a choice. Not that "choice" has anything to do with it, these drug manufactures have not taken away someone's "choice", even if you grant that their choice is gone, they took away their own choice.

I submit that your position is completely incoherent, and if you are prepared to use this incoherent position against your fellow man, then you have some serious moral failings.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

George,

I have seen drug dealers get 8 and 9 year olds addicted to crack cocaine so they will run the drugs to customers. In fact, I bought enough off of young kids when I was an addict. This is one of the few pangs of guilt I carry in my heart.

Kids don't go to jail. Adults do. So kids are better on the firing line for dealers and they are expendable. When one gets mutilated by the drug beyond repair, he becomes mentally incompetent and thrown on the wayside. There is always another to take his place. The addiction keeps him in line until then and always coming back for more.

This is definitely a violation of rights, no matter how you look at it.

Michael

I think I referenced consenting adults and when one's rights are violated.

I'd want to look real closely to see where exactly the violation of rights occurs. For sure it is a parenting issue.

Edited April 9, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I appreciate your sentiment much more than you could possibly know.

Where addiction is concerned, matters are very vague right now and there is a silly fight between two sides: one that claims it is a disease and the other that claims it is a choice. The truth is that addiction is not just one thing: it is multi-faceted. It is biochemical, volitional, spiritual, psychological, often social and, usually, but not always, peppered with some serious abuse from the past. And that's if I have not left anything out. Actually, there are many kinds of addictions and there is no one-size-fits all.

If you ever truly become interested in this topic (and I sincerely hope you never experience this or the heartbreak and hell of seeing a loved one become addicted), I suggest you go down to an open NA meeting or some places like that. You might be surprised by what you see. You will not learn much about addiction on Objectivist forums, as the topic is underdeveloped and more often than not, highly oversimplified.

We have an Addiction section here on OL if you want to read some literature from an Objectivist starting point. At least it is within the ballpark of Objectivism. When I came out of my addictions in Brazil, all that was available was churches. I took it, too. When that's all you've got, you do the best you can with it.

I am very much in favor of making highly addictive drugs controlled substances like poisons, but accessible to a person who meets a precautionary screening (similar to buying handguns). I am against making them illegal, since all this does is feed cartels and organized crime.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Howard,

Please don't mind Shayne right now. He's abrasive and overly-presumptuous in personal evaluations, but he has a good mind and a good heart. I think he is embarrassed to show his good side, but I'm not sure.

Michael

[sjw]

Howard,

Please don't mind Shayne right now. He's abrasive and overly-presumptuous in personal evaluations, but he has a good mind and a good heart. I think he is embarrassed to show his good side, but I'm not sure.

Michael

To hell with that, Howard is prescribing for me what I can and can't do with the matter Nature provides. He's not God. He was born the same way I was, nothing gives him the right to tell me what I will and won't do with particular atoms in my possession. Nor does he have a right to tell me and someone else what we will and won't trade. He can go to hell.

I'm exercising a lot of restraint with my words here. Howard's nanny-state philosophy I regard with the lowest kind of contempt.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

I'm with sjw on this one. And I agree he is showing restraint.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You are making presumptions about a person based on two statements. That's not nearly enough information to make the kinds of public judgments you make about him and claim to be objective.

Verify, then judge. That's a much better alternative than flying off at the handle.

Discussion forums are for that: discussion. This is not a predominantly moral condemnation forum. Howard seems like a nice enough guy. Why not feel him out, see why he believes what he does, and try to convince him or otherwise interact before condemning him to hell?

There ain't no guns on Internet forums.

Michael

[sjw]

Why not feel him out, see why he believes what he does, and try to convince him or otherwise interact before condemning him to hell?

It's called self-esteem. I don't willingly make nice with people who would point a gun to my head and order me around. [NOTE FROM MSK: PHRASE DELETED.]

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

That's enough.

Michael

[howardahood]

OK, I am out of here. These people cannot discuss philosophical issues rationally.

HH

Why not feel him out, see why he believes what he does, and try to convince him or otherwise interact before condemning him to hell?

It's called self-esteem. I don't willingly make nice with people who would point a gun to my head and order me around. [NOTE FROM MSK: PHRASE DELETED.]

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

George,

I have seen drug dealers get 8 and 9 year olds addicted to crack cocaine so they will run the drugs to customers. In fact, I bought enough off of young kids when I was an addict. This is one of the few pangs of guilt I carry in my heart.

Kids don't go to jail. Adults do. So kids are better on the firing line for dealers and they are expendable. When one gets mutilated by the drug beyond repair, he becomes mentally incompetent and thrown on the wayside. There is always another to take his place. The addiction keeps him in line until then and always coming back for more.

This is definitely a violation of rights, no matter how you look at it.

Michael

Glad this came up, grateful that you posted the above. Going in my mental inbox, marked for cogitation. Thanks.

HEY HOWARD, don't jump to conclusions about this forum. Never know what might happen next.

;)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Howard,

I ask you to reconsider.

I am deleting the foul language aimed at you in the posts and any further verbal aggression directed at you will be deleted should you decide to stay. If not, it was a pleasure knowing you and I apologize for the poor manners you were shown. I am getting sick of the nasty excesses, so I will be attending to this issue shortly regardless of anything else.

What you experienced was not typical of how discussions are conducted on OL.

Michael

[sjw]

Howard,

I ask you to reconsider.

I am deleting the foul language aimed at you in the posts and any further verbal aggression directed at you will be deleted should you decide to stay. If not, it was a pleasure knowing you and I apologize for the poor manners you were shown. I am getting sick of the nasty excesses, so I will be attending to this issue shortly regardless of anything else.

What you experienced was not typical of how discussions are conducted on OL.

Michael

Verbal aggression? He condones real-life physical aggression and you censor me for verbal aggression? Disgusting.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Howard,

I ask you to reconsider.

I am deleting the foul language aimed at you in the posts and any further verbal aggression directed at you will be deleted should you decide to stay. If not, it was a pleasure knowing you and I apologize for the poor manners you were shown. I am getting sick of the nasty excesses, so I will be attending to this issue shortly regardless of anything else.

What you experienced was not typical of how discussions are conducted on OL.

Michael

Verbal aggression? He condones real-life physical aggression and you censor me for verbal aggression? Disgusting.

Shayne

I can't comment on this because I don't know what Michael deleted by Shayne. But Shayne, on an Internet forum there is only verbal agression or not, not physical agression. So qua agression you are one up on HH here.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

If you make production of drugs illegal, this still means that the drug dealer will still exist. Organized crime (drug production) will still exist. Tainted drugs with no legal recourse will still be sold. The prices will still be artificially high, meaning addicts will still need to steal to slake their addiction.

Only by making drug production fully legal can we rid society of the crack dealing (crack is basically cheap cocaine, in a free market cocaine will be so cheap crack will be rendered obsolete. And crack has worse side effects than coke. Crystal Meth is to Speed what crack is to coke), drug-tainting, killer gangs.

As for my own personal position on drug use, I do not consider that relevant here.

[Kat]

I believe that the Objectivist position is that there should be no prohibition of drugs. Under this view, cocaine, heroin, and meth could be sold in Wal-Mart stores to any adult.

Hi Howard and welcome to OL. I certainly don't hold that view that street drugs should be freely available and I'm wondering where that idea came from. This sounds more like hedonism or the anarchist libertarian perspective. Drugs such as these certainly are not acting in one's rational self-interest and I can't imagine Ayn Rand promoting the use and sale of dangerous substances. Can you provide quotes?

Kat