by havanagila » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:49 pm
RDR, well, we are going to end up with the more general discussion, libretarianism, socialism/state paternalisms etc. Drugs are just one example of many. The problem with the non paternalistic view is that is assumes a basic equality and rule of law, which do not exist. So, if in fact criminals are allowed a free hand in pushing drugs to people who are not informed, then we just make our lives easier, but not really making a coherent claim. if in fact people are allowed to drug unwitting young ladies to rape them, or just to get others dependent (hooked), or to youth in schools...so etc. etc. I don't want to repeat that, you already know all of it. And so actually derregulating drugs will require much more regulation (enforcing labor laws, customs laws, information on packets, price regulation, maybe prescription regulations etc. etc. we might end up just saving money by making the entire thing illegal, because society sees no POSITIVE value, so great to outweigh the costs. certainly the costs of misuse, the kind that is always incidental to such risky activities). So, I don't think there are easy solutions otherwise we would all hear about them and be immediately convinced. Once you accept the need and justification for criminal law (police powers), the rest is negotiable, and depends on cost-effect data, risk v. benefits etc. It is not engraved in stone by the finger of god. Its just social policies, with view to social order, public peace, etc. I was taking a more personal line of thought, trying to follow my own reasoning.<br>I agree that the drug itself has nothing to do with ethics, its the use, the user, the context..that invoke ethics and morality. But that's like saying guns are neutral. I agree, and then what ? should toddlers have access to it ? should selling guns in schools be allowed ? should licensing be prescribed under the law, etc. etc.<br>I will not say LSD is bad, or good. But whether giving it, or selling it, or allowing it for use, is good or bad. My impression, from anecdotal, personal, life experience was that ALL the users I met who thought they can control the experience became addicts and fell into the drug lifestyle (namely, zombified). So my natural take on it is that using drugs is bad for you. (not morally, but being bad as in opposed to beneficial). But then I am saying also, who cares ? not in the evil way, but really, I cannot protect people from their judgement, and the law couldn't as well (they all became drug users despite the law), maybe its just as well not to bother with criminalizing it. I would then qualify my argument and say that I believe it is much more ethical to inform people of the risks in a way that is available and effective BEFORE they use it.Usually, criminalizing something increases the chances people will know of the risks. <br>If I heard more people with positive experiences, that I trust as credible, I might change my mind. But if my life is an average representation of statistics, then I KNOW one person who thought it was very good, the Ecstasy person, and did not seem addicted (although immediately after the "trips" that showed her the light, she decided to divorce her husband of twenty years marriage and father of 4 kids, and decided he kept her from living etc. etc. she completed the divorce a few months ago, so I don't know if the final implication are available). All the others, dozens of friends, acquaintances not to mention clients...suffered tragic adverse results from using drugs of ANY kind (including pot). The closer friends among them, whom I knew when they first started, were very happy in the beginning and also never even dreamt they will get addicted. They all started with pot, then to hallucinogenics and landed in the pit of Heroine (called here "Persian Cok"). Other ecstasy people, not that lady I mentioned, said they had a good time but had indiscriminate sex which they regret. <br>--<br>Last. And that's an Israeli perspective. It has become a growing problem, that soldiers and security servicemen are using various drugs. This, they say, is how they can "carry on" the jobs without being affected emotionally or feeling bad that they harm others. I find this very disturbing.<br><br>But the law, might not be the remedy for my concerns. the world sucks, and not everything can be changed by just writing down "do not do it". We know now what "the law" is, and who are those in charge of making and enforcing it. So, I am not as resolved as I was, but still I think this unfortunate that many people cannot cope with life (for a good reason) and depend on drugs (until they collapse) and others provide them with this death trap. But what else is new. <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>