Freethought & Rationalism Archive

VivaHedone · 03-02-2003, 03:38 AM

What right does the government have to prohibit the consumption of narcotics? As far as I can see, none whatsoever. The government only has the right to set rules regarding our interaction with others, not entirely private matters.

kwigibo · 03-02-2003, 04:03 AM

just find a narcotic the government hasn't heard of

Free Thinkr · 03-02-2003, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VivaHedone
The government only has the right to set rules regarding our interaction with others, not entirely private matters.

Yep, and it's "operation: pullover" this week in my town.

FatherTorque666 · 03-02-2003, 07:11 PM

Hmmm...from what I have seen, it is not illegal to consume drugs. Only illegal to possess, purchase, distribute, manufacture, and own paraphenalia needed to consume said drugs. So consume away (just don't posses, buy, or make your own

)

Farren · 03-06-2003, 03:58 AM

Seriously though,

I have to agree with the original post. We can't simply accept that any government has the right to legislate away a freedom just because its apparently harmful to the individual. This is inconsistant with the vast number of freedoms we have in areas that are harmful or potentially harmful to our own wellbieng.

If you argue that some of these, like bungie jumping, are only potentially harmful, rather than inevitably harmful, I'd have to disagree.

Of the narcotics widely banned in the West, only a fraction are physically addictive. LSD isn't, Ecstacy isn't, Marijuana isn't. The potency of the drug (Ecstacy has a much more powerful effect than dope) does not correlate to its addictiveness.

If something isn't physically addictive, the argument that an individual is stripped of thier right to choose after a few uses falls away. They always have the power of choice and are therefore always accountable for behaviour under the influence of drugs. In this case, why not prosecute criminal behaviour, influenced by drugs or not, rather than use of the drug?

Medical understanding of addiction is still incomplete, so I have to admit my argument is based not based on hard fact but strong and compelling evidence. I'm referring to physical addiction here as an uncontrollable craving for a drug that leaves the user severely emotionally traumatized and/or exhibiting strong physical side effects if deprived of the drug.

In the case of drugs like nicotene, the mechanism of this is obvious. Nicotene replaces a similar chemical in the brain and stops your body producing it. So obviously when you get addicted, you continue to need more for normal functioning. No similar mechanisms exist for LSD, Peyote, Ecstacy, Mescalene.

I know what I'm talking about. I've abused rather than used drugs. The causes were not addiction but personal inability to find excitement and joy elsewhere in life. When I made a conscious decision to stop, it was easy because I wasn't taking addictive drugs. Half my salary went to Ecstacy and LSD over three years. The worst consequence of stopping was boredom until I got back into my teenage hobby of game programming.

I know quite a few people who still _use_ drugs. All of them are over 30, professionals and most of them are fitness conscious (I'm not, and I think thats why I had problems). One guy I know has been practicing Kung Fu religiously since he was six, and has been invited to study with a master in Hong Kong. He _loves_ ecstacy, in moderation, and is demonstrably able to fit it into his regime.

During that time I abused drugs I wasn't too emotionally stable but I maintained my own small business and kept things floating. I can't say the net effect was positive but when I read the horror stories posted by anti drug campaigners and compare it to my own experiences and those of most of the people I know: B5%$#$%#$@#$shit, in the sense that it tells only a part of the story, about the ghettos of drugs, ghettos created, in fact by anti-drug legislation.

Like the prohibition in the states, legislation creates the problem. It creates a gang culture around drugs. It creates a stigma that drives less fortunate drug users into a ghettoised existence. Drug legislation is a far greater evil that drug culture.

To me, anti-drug legislation treads unnacceptably on the domain of personal freedom, in the same way that strong censorship of "pornography", sharia law on adultry, and restrictions on freedom of speech do. I think history demonstrates that it is more often used as an excuse to stigmatize and criminalize minorities and oppress dissidents.

Oh, and I should mention that I still have a joint now and then (about every three weeks) but I don't count this as serious drug use.

03-02-2003, 03:38 AM	#1
VivaHedone Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Norwich, England Posts: 146	Drugs and Liberty What right does the government have to prohibit the consumption of narcotics? As far as I can see, none whatsoever. The government only has the right to set rules regarding our interaction with others, not entirely private matters.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2003, 04:03 AM	#2
kwigibo Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia Posts: 5,814	just find a narcotic the government hasn't heard of

03-02-2003, 07:11 PM	#4
FatherTorque666 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Great Falls, MT Posts: 58	Hmmm...from what I have seen, it is not illegal to consume drugs. Only illegal to possess, purchase, distribute, manufacture, and own paraphenalia needed to consume said drugs. So consume away (just don't posses, buy, or make your own )

03-06-2003, 03:58 AM	#5
Farren Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,194	Seriously though, I have to agree with the original post. We can't simply accept that any government has the right to legislate away a freedom just because its apparently harmful to the individual. This is inconsistant with the vast number of freedoms we have in areas that are harmful or potentially harmful to our own wellbieng. If you argue that some of these, like bungie jumping, are only potentially harmful, rather than inevitably harmful, I'd have to disagree. Of the narcotics widely banned in the West, only a fraction are physically addictive. LSD isn't, Ecstacy isn't, Marijuana isn't. The potency of the drug (Ecstacy has a much more powerful effect than dope) does not correlate to its addictiveness. If something isn't physically addictive, the argument that an individual is stripped of thier right to choose after a few uses falls away. They always have the power of choice and are therefore always accountable for behaviour under the influence of drugs. In this case, why not prosecute criminal behaviour, influenced by drugs or not, rather than use of the drug? Medical understanding of addiction is still incomplete, so I have to admit my argument is based not based on hard fact but strong and compelling evidence. I'm referring to physical addiction here as an uncontrollable craving for a drug that leaves the user severely emotionally traumatized and/or exhibiting strong physical side effects if deprived of the drug. In the case of drugs like nicotene, the mechanism of this is obvious. Nicotene replaces a similar chemical in the brain and stops your body producing it. So obviously when you get addicted, you continue to need more for normal functioning. No similar mechanisms exist for LSD, Peyote, Ecstacy, Mescalene. I know what I'm talking about. I've abused rather than used drugs. The causes were not addiction but personal inability to find excitement and joy elsewhere in life. When I made a conscious decision to stop, it was easy because I wasn't taking addictive drugs. Half my salary went to Ecstacy and LSD over three years. The worst consequence of stopping was boredom until I got back into my teenage hobby of game programming. I know quite a few people who still _use_ drugs. All of them are over 30, professionals and most of them are fitness conscious (I'm not, and I think thats why I had problems). One guy I know has been practicing Kung Fu religiously since he was six, and has been invited to study with a master in Hong Kong. He _loves_ ecstacy, in moderation, and is demonstrably able to fit it into his regime. During that time I abused drugs I wasn't too emotionally stable but I maintained my own small business and kept things floating. I can't say the net effect was positive but when I read the horror stories posted by anti drug campaigners and compare it to my own experiences and those of most of the people I know: B5%$#$%#$@#$shit, in the sense that it tells only a part of the story, about the ghettos of drugs, ghettos created, in fact by anti-drug legislation. Like the prohibition in the states, legislation creates the problem. It creates a gang culture around drugs. It creates a stigma that drives less fortunate drug users into a ghettoised existence. Drug legislation is a far greater evil that drug culture. To me, anti-drug legislation treads unnacceptably on the domain of personal freedom, in the same way that strong censorship of "pornography", sharia law on adultry, and restrictions on freedom of speech do. I think history demonstrates that it is more often used as an excuse to stigmatize and criminalize minorities and oppress dissidents. Oh, and I should mention that I still have a joint now and then (about every three weeks) but I don't count this as serious drug use.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.