Regulation of Drugs

[georgedonnelly]

Let's try a little harder to think this through before spouting off nonsense, shall we?

That's an excellent idea, you first.

I already went first.

Usually you rebut someone's arguments before you add on quips like that.

[georgedonnelly]

The "ill effects" of living have been "well demonstrated."

--Brant

Um no, no they have not. You'll have to name the ill effects of being alive because frankly none occur to me.

If you are a regular consumer of McDonald's food and aren't aware of the ill effects of eating their fare then you must not be paying attention. There was even a movie made about it.

I have at different times in my life taking up eating McDonald's 2-3 times a week and quickly noticed the enormous weight gains and other yuckiness. I forswore McDonald's several years ago though.

I haven't had the same bad experience with Burger King or Wendy's, for whatever that is worth.

[tjohnson]

I already went first.

Usually you rebut someone's arguments before you add on quips like that.

When I see someone use the phrase "spouting off nonsense" I think rationality has gone by the wayside and no further discussion will be useful.

[Wolf DeVoon]

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.

It's not easy or prudent for me to speak informally about rights violations. So, I'll quote the Constitution as we go along and try to draw reasonable inferences about the case as Michael presented it. I'm willing to certify that the complaint on its face is probable cause to investigate felony.

All felony prosecutions shall be conducted on behalf of a living natural person whose enjoyment of life, liberty, or settled claim to property are alleged to have been impaired...

Kids A, B, C have been grievously impaired by addiction to drugs, supplied by Dealer D and others. Kids A, B, C are hereby remanded into provisional custody and care by the local Kid Charity, qualified volunteer advocates are appointed, and their cases transferred to Family Court.

Legal philosophy addresses... the combined might of a community...

The complaint alleges a pattern of continuing criminal conduct which affects the community at large, as well as theatening future kid victims E, F, G. I'm willing to appoint a barrister-procurator and empanel a Grand Jury of limited duration to hear testimony and bring charges against all those who supplied or facilitated the supply of drugs to local children, including parents who failed to properly supervise and care for such children.

The right to keep and bear arms and to use reasonable force in defense of one's life and innocent liberty, or the life and liberty of another, describes the police power generally. Every person signatory to this Constitution is lawfully empowered to arrest and detain a perpetrator or willing accessory apprehended during the commission of a crime.

I order the arrest and detention of Dealer D. If he resists arrest, you're allowed to use proportional and reasonable force to capture him. If he draws a gun or threatens the life of another, kill the bastard. Please remember to video the whole thing.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Brant Gaede]

The "ill effects" of living have been "well demonstrated."

--Brant

Um no, no they have not. You'll have to name the ill effects of being alive because frankly none occur to me.

If you are a regular consumer of McDonald's food and aren't aware of the ill effects of eating their fare then you must not be paying attention. There was even a movie made about it.

I have at different times in my life taking up eating McDonald's 2-3 times a week and quickly noticed the enormous weight gains and other yuckiness. I forswore McDonald's several years ago though.

I haven't had the same bad experience with Burger King or Wendy's, for whatever that is worth.

Living results in death, or didn't you know? When you ate at McD's, what did you give up? You eat at Burger King/Wendy's 2-3 times a week?

--Brant

[Selene]

Damn, sorry I was not a member for this one.

Michael's factual statement [and you can add mine] raises the critical issue that is quasi addressed in the Galt's Gulch conversation about raising children which is the only reference that I have observed in Atlas.

In fact, folks who have children in Atlas basically do not exist.

It is an issue that has always troubled me about Objectivism.

Is there, in a severely limited government, an obligation to protect human life...clearly the answer is in the affirmative.

As a sub contention, does the limited state have the right to protect "children" as defined under law?

Interesting thread Michael.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I order the arrest and detention of Dealer D. If he resists arrest, you're allowed to use proportional and reasonable force to capture him. If he draws a gun or threatens the life of another, kill the bastard. Please remember to video the whole thing.

Wolf,

We think alike. The only exceptoin being don't use the video until that Constitution is in force. Under present laws, the garbageman is often confused with the garbage.

As for the rest:...

"I will gladly pay you Tuesdy for a hamburger today..."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I order the arrest and detention of Dealer D. If he resists arrest, you're allowed to use proportional and reasonable force to capture him. If he draws a gun or threatens the life of another, kill the bastard. Please remember to video the whole thing.

Wolf,

We think alike. The only exceptoin being don't use the video until that Constitution is in force. Under present laws, the garbageman is often confused with the garbage.

As for the rest:...

"I will gladly pay you Tuesdy for a hamburger today..."

Michael,

I hope you are using "think" as a stolen concept.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I have known some really rough people in life. I have known several cops and ex-cops in Brazil (known as in "visit each others homes and eat meals together" kind of known) who told me many stories of how they hauled out human garbage. If a child rapist or drug dealer who purposesly induced children to become addicted crack to use them as runners or someone like that got caught by these dudes, his brief and limited future was rarely pleasant.

I suppose I should have felt moral outrage at these guys for acting without due process, but I never did. Not after what I saw. Instead, we used to take great pleasure in each other's company and our meals together were consumed with gusto. I trusted them and they had well-defined moral compasses. In fact, when I go back down to Brazil to visit or for business, I intend to look a couple of them up to say hi.

That is one of the prices of a society where there are too many laws and lots of flexibility. Of course, this power does get abused at times, but it is not as rampant as one would think. It is actually pretty tame compared to the risks these guys face out on the streets. It was much worse under the military dictatorship.

I would have to check, but I don't think police brutality in Brazil is statistically far removed from that in the USA, although the actual acts of brutality are worse. The courts, however, are just as messed up down there as they are up here.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

I order the arrest and detention of Dealer D. If he resists arrest, you're allowed to use proportional and reasonable force to capture him. If he draws a gun or threatens the life of another, kill the bastard. Please remember to video the whole thing.

That's nice but I'd like to understand exactly whose rights have been violated by whom when and how in Michael's scenario.

[georgedonnelly]

Living results in death, or didn't you know?

Death is not an [ill] effect of life. It is a part of life.

Death is an effect of something going wrong in life. Death is the effect of an accident, initiation of force, failure of a vital organ, etc.

We're talking about effects, which require respective causes

Cause: Eat A Big Mac.

Effect: You gain weight and your health declines proportionately.

Cause: Stab yourself in the heart

Effect: Death

Cause: Exist / be alive / be born

Effect: Think / Feel / Sense

When you ate at McD's, what did you give up?

Time (in the form of currency) and aspects of my health.

You eat at Burger King/Wendy's 2-3 times a week?

Of course not. I eat healthy meals prepared at home with a Domino's pizza or a juicy steak eaten out thrown in on the weekends.

Edited April 10, 2008 by George Donnelly

[georgedonnelly]

That is one of the prices of a society where there are too many laws and lots of flexibility.

Or is it because law enforcement is too lax even to the point of non-existence? [Never been to Brazil, so I have no idea.]

That's what I see in Colombia. Police presence on the streets is minimal. That and crappy/malevolent parenting are responsible for a lot of these kids-getting-mixed-up-with-bad-adults problems I see here.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I order the arrest and detention of Dealer D. If he resists arrest, you're allowed to use proportional and reasonable force to capture him. If he draws a gun or threatens the life of another, kill the bastard. Please remember to video the whole thing.

That's nice but I'd like to understand exactly whose rights have been violated by whom when and how in Michael's scenario.

Er... no one's. Everybody gets a hearing. The kids were handed over to Kid Charity temporarily for help. Michael's complaint resulted in an arrest warrant, but that doesn't mean Dealer D or anyone else will be convicted of anything. I can't guess what he might be charged with. Aggravated battery and child abuse? Extortion? It's up to the Grand Jury to indict, then another jury of twelve to convict, etc. He has the presumption of innocence in his favor. Long road ahead before anybody might be punished. And punishment is a dicey thing. The very worst I can do under the Freeman's Constitution is a decree of 'outlaw.'

We'll have to talk about this further sometime. Hard to conceive that the purpose of law is primarily to restrain government (death squads in Brazil, for instance).

W.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about permanently mutilating kids?

Isn't that some kind of crime in some category or other?

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

I order the arrest and detention of Dealer D. If he resists arrest, you're allowed to use proportional and reasonable force to capture him. If he draws a gun or threatens the life of another, kill the bastard. Please remember to video the whole thing.

That's nice but I'd like to understand exactly whose rights have been violated by whom when and how in Michael's scenario.

Er... no one's. Everybody gets a hearing. The kids were handed over to Kid Charity temporarily for help. Michael's complaint resulted in an arrest warrant, but that doesn't mean Dealer D or anyone else will be convicted of anything. I can't guess what he might be charged with. Aggravated battery and child abuse? Extortion? It's up to the Grand Jury to indict, then another jury of twelve to convict, etc. He has the presumption of innocence in his favor. Long road ahead before anybody might be punished. And punishment is a dicey thing. The very worst I can do under the Freeman's Constitution is a decree of 'outlaw.'

We'll have to talk about this further sometime. Hard to conceive that the purpose of law is primarily to restrain government (death squads in Brazil, for instance).

W.

We're talking about the same thing in different ways.

In Michael's scenario the drug dealer entices the kids into taking drugs. In yours the drug dealer is taken into custody and his life is in jeopardy.

Why?

Whose rights did the drug dealer violate, when and how? And why are you sending someone to capture him dead or alive (essentially)?

Yeah sure drugs = bad and all that, but what precisely has the drug dealer done wrong? And don't tell me "he gave drugs to kids", that's not an answer. I'd like to know what rights of whom have been violated because I don't think it's entirely obvious. Thanks.

Edited April 10, 2008 by George Donnelly

[georgedonnelly]

How about permanently mutilating kids?

How does giving a kid an addictive drug constitute mutilation?

American Heritage Dictionary

mu·ti·late

tr.v.

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

I think it's a stretch to call giving a kid cocaine or heroin mutilation. You might get a foot in the door if you say that long-term use of the drug may cripple the child's mind.

And even so, consuming the drug, unless forced by the drug dealer or some fraud is used, is entirely voluntary.

Assuming the drug dealer isn't saying it's candy and doesn't have a gun to the boy's head, how is offering drugs to a child any different than offering them a pen-knife or a hammer or a really sharp pen?

And assuming there is no difference do you also advocate sending out the posse after scoutmasters, carpenters and writers who share the tools of their trade with minors?

[tjohnson]

I think it's a stretch to call giving a kid cocaine or heroin mutilation. You might get a foot in the door if you say that long-term use of the drug may cripple the child's mind.

Really? I don't think it's a stretch at all. The child's brain will be permanently damaged

And even so, consuming the drug, unless forced by the drug dealer or some fraud is used, is entirely voluntary.

It is not entirely voluntary when an adult obtains consent from a minor. This is the reasoning behind statutory rape.

Assuming the drug dealer isn't saying it's candy and doesn't have a gun to the boy's head, how is offering drugs to a child any different than offering them a pen-knife or a hammer or a really sharp pen?

And assuming there is no difference do you also advocate sending out the posse after scoutmasters, carpenters and writers who share the tools of their trade with minors?

This is something you do often in your arguments - I believe it's called the fallacy of false analogy.

[Brant Gaede]

Good points, GS, but that fallacy is kind of dubious to me because it implies analogy is part of a valid process of reasoning in itself. I only see it as illustrating a point for the purpose of clarity and understanding. I'd be more likely to simply state that it is a false analogy--not describe it as a fallacy.

--Brant

[sjw]

Yeah sure drugs = bad and all that, but what precisely has the drug dealer done wrong? And don't tell me "he gave drugs to kids", that's not an answer. I'd like to know what rights of whom have been violated because I don't think it's entirely obvious. Thanks.

He violated the parents' rights to raise their children.

I don't condone the war on drugs, but I'm convinced it should be illegal to give alcohol/drugs to minors. But it shouldn't be prosecuted preemptively, just as when someone slugs your kid you go after him afterwards, the same should hold if someone gives your kid drugs, you go after him after the crime has been committed.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

Really? I don't think it's a stretch at all. The child's brain will be permanently damaged

I don't think the scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim that any illegal drug use by a minor will cause permanent brain damage. The burden of proof is on you.

It is not entirely voluntary when an adult obtains consent from a minor.

What consent is required in order to provide a gift of something to a minor?

I believe it's called the fallacy of false analogy.

Drug Dealer gives drugs to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm.

Scoutmaster gives a knife to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm.

Carpenter gives a hammer to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm.

Writer gives a sharp pen to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm.

How are these "false" analogies? In each case an object is given to a minor. Said object has the potential to be used by the boy to harm himself.

Will you say the difference is the purpose of each object? Each individual defines their purpose for any given object. A dollop of lead may be a poison to you and a paperweight to me. A knife may be a weapon to you but a harmless letter-opener to me. An ounce of an illegal narcotic may be pleasure for one person and unthinkable to another.

[georgedonnelly]

He violated the parents' rights to raise their children.

And just what do you base this claim of a right of a parent to raise their children on?

[sjw]

He violated the parents' rights to raise their children.

And just what do you base this claim of a right of a parent to raise their children on?

That strikes me as a strange question coming from an Objectivist, Rand talked about this. The child's rational faculty isn't developed yet, that's why.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

Here is a summary of the 11 arguments presented in this thread for the regulation of "dangerous, addictive drugs". Please accept my apologies for any misinterpretations, oversights or mis-attributions.

- There is no right to to harm others by selling substances which kill and which create physical dependence. [HH]

- Allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. [HH]

- Legalizing puts a "stamp of approval" on it. [GS]

- Smoking pot is not something we should be encouraging our children to do, IMO. [GS]

- It's a violation of rights when dealers involve children in the drug trade. [MSK]

- Drugs such as these certainly are not acting in one's rational self-interest. [Kat]

- Drug use can scar a person for life. [GS]

- Lots of social problems come with drug use. [GS]

- Innocent children might suffer devastating "negative psychological effects" from witnessing the horrific physical and mental damages that drugs can do to addicts. [Jonathan]

- During the manufacturing process, harmful traces of drugs, drug-making chemicals and by-products are very likely to leak onto others' properties and into their air spaces. [Jonathan]

- A child's brain is permanently damaged by illegal drug use. [GS]

True of other, legal substances

- Allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. [HH]

- Drug use can scar a person for life. [GS]

- Lots of social problems come with drug use. [GS]

- Drugs such as these certainly are not acting in one's rational self-interest. [Kat]

The same could be said about alcohol but it is legal. Do these persons wish to ban alcohol?

Unproven or Imprecise

- It's a violation of rights when dealers involve children in the drug trade. [MSK]

- A child's brain is permanently damaged by illegal drug use. [GS]

Arbitrary or Irrelevant: So what?!

- There is no right to to harm others by selling substances which kill and which create physical dependence. [HH]

- Legalizing puts a "stamp of approval" on it. [GS]

- Smoking pot is not something we should be encouraging our children to do, IMO. [GS]

Reportedly Sarcastic

- Innocent children might suffer devastating "negative psychological effects" from witnessing the horrific physical and mental damages that drugs can do to addicts. [Jonathan]

- During the manufacturing process, harmful traces of drugs, drug-making chemicals and by-products are very likely to leak onto others' properties and into their air spaces. [Jonathan]

Edited April 10, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Ellen Stuttle]

George,

Just to let you know, since Jonathan often has long gaps between times when he signs on:

His post wasn't meant as seriously expressing his viewpoint; it was a take-off on arguments Shayne used in regard to pornography on another thread.

Ellen

___

[georgedonnelly]

Rand talked about this. The child's rational faculty isn't developed yet, that's why.

I'm not finding where she talked about this. I see some articles from ARI about parental rights but I don't think AR wrote those.

Let's posit that a parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit. Does that make illegal all interactions between non-parental adults and children that are not explicitly approved by one or both parents?

What if the parent told the child not to take things from strangers but the parent allowed the child, through intention or neglect, to come into contact with a drug dealer, who was unaware of this parental order, and the child defied the parent's order, accepting drugs and subsequently voluntarily consuming them?

Which right of whom has been violated and exactly when?