Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 7:14 am

Belinda wrote: ↑August 13th, 2008, 3:49 am Not quite. People who make themselves ill are a drain on society.

Indeed. But rock-climbers injure themselves all the time. And so on, for many human pastimes. Drug use is just one of them. If we're moving in the direction of prohibition, how many drains on society will we wish to prohibit...? There are a lot to choose from.

What are your thoughts on mountain climbers being charged for the cost of their rescues?

100%. Legalise them all.

It won't happen, though. There are many vested interests.

pjkeeley wrote: ↑August 12th, 2008, 11:05 pm There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.

Would you allow the sale of a drug designed for euthanasia to be sold at the local shop?

How about LSD in the toy shop?

Where are your limits - if any?

Greta wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 6:16 pm 100%. Legalise them all.

It won't happen, though. There are many vested interests.

Recreational or prescription or both? Who does the 40 year old smoker who gets a stroke on over the counter Birth Control Pills, sue for damages, the cashier at the five and dime?

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 2:31 am

Greta wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 6:16 pm 100%. Legalise them all.

It won't happen, though. There are many vested interests.

Recreational or prescription or both? Who does the 40 year old smoker who gets a stroke on over the counter Birth Control Pills, sue for damages, the cashier at the five and dime?

All, and no suing. Caveat emptor.

If a drug leads people to illegal behaviour, then that can be dealt with. If it doesn't, no worries.

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:03 pm What are your thoughts on mountain climbers being charged for the cost of their rescues?

Not much. In the extreme, I can see reasons for not supporting any and all injuries that could be seen as self-inflicted. But, in general, injuries happen, and we need treatment when they do. In a civilised country, where healthcare is free for all at the point of need, healthcare is just an insurance policy, one that everyone has. And it gives them the freedom to explore things, like mountain climbing, that might otherwise be too risky. "Oh, I can't do that, I can't afford the health insurance...."

Back on-topic: senior police officers will tell you (I have seen explicit and official statements to this effect in the media) that giving (illegal) drugs away for free would be cheaper to society than the current situation, where addicts steal from others to fund their habits. I do not condone the status quo, but I do accept the simple fact of what the police say. Free drugs would cost us all less.

Greta wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 2:51 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 2:31 am

Recreational or prescription or both? Who does the 40 year old smoker who gets a stroke on over the counter Birth Control Pills, sue for damages, the cashier at the five and dime?

All, and no suing. Caveat emptor.

If a drug leads people to illegal behaviour, then that can be dealt with. If it doesn't, no worries.

Sounds marginally OK as a post online but in Real Life medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US and 88% of those are medication errors. So you're saying taking Board Certified physicians out of the system of medication exposure and let folks who feel comfortable with their Wikipedia search do that task?

While we're at it why don't we eliminate building codes and let any ol' person build tall buildings and bridges out of whatever. Oh wait that already happens in places like Haiti and India.

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 11:16 am

Greta wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 2:51 am
All, and no suing. Caveat emptor.

If a drug leads people to illegal behaviour, then that can be dealt with. If it doesn't, no worries.

Sounds marginally OK as a post online but in Real Life medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US and 88% of those are medication errors. So you're saying taking Board Certified physicians out of the system of medication exposure and let folks who feel comfortable with their Wikipedia search do that task?

While we're at it why don't we eliminate building codes and let any ol' person build tall buildings and bridges out of whatever. Oh wait that already happens in places like Haiti and India.

I was talking about illegal drugs, not the dangerous gunk that you lot prescribe :Þ

I think the worst thing to happen to the medical profession was the end of the family doctor, replaced by medical centres. There's nothing quite like a doctor who can actually tell if something is wrong with you or not without running tests. Governments, that have so often undermined doctors' and nurses' work, then have to nerve to talk about saving lives by keeping cannabis illegal - all the while encouraging the use of alcohol, a drug that actually can and does kill, not to mention anti-social issues.

If we want to save lives, it might help to, say, allow interns and nurses to get enough rest between shifts to function. It might help to have enough nurses to do the work they are hired to do. It might help if young people were educated about drugs and how they affect the body, rather than the usual "just say no" and obviously misleading and overstated risks that cannot be taken seriously.

Greta wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 5:12 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 11:16 am

Sounds marginally OK as a post online but in Real Life medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US and 88% of those are medication errors. So you're saying taking Board Certified physicians out of the system of medication exposure and let folks who feel comfortable with their Wikipedia search do that task?

While we're at it why don't we eliminate building codes and let any ol' person build tall buildings and bridges out of whatever. Oh wait that already happens in places like Haiti and India.

I was talking about illegal drugs, not the dangerous gunk that you lot prescribe :Þ

I think the worst thing to happen to the medical profession was the end of the family doctor, replaced by medical centres. There's nothing quite like a doctor who can actually tell if something is wrong with you or not without running tests. Governments, that have so often undermined doctors' and nurses' work, then have to nerve to talk about saving lives by keeping cannabis illegal - all the while encouraging the use of alcohol, a drug that actually can and does kill, not to mention anti-social issues.

If we want to save lives, it might help to, say, allow interns and nurses to get enough rest between shifts to function. It might help to have enough nurses to do the work they are hired to do. It might help if young people were educated about drugs and how they affect the body, rather than the usual "just say no" and obviously misleading and overstated risks that cannot be taken seriously.

That's what I originally assumed, hence my query on recreational vs prescription

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 10:26 am
Back on-topic: senior police officers will tell you (I have seen explicit and official statements to this effect in the media) that giving (illegal) drugs away for free would be cheaper to society than the current situation, where addicts steal from others to fund their habits. I do not condone the status quo, but I do accept the simple fact of what the police say. Free drugs would cost us all less.

Using illegal drugs is no longer illegal in Portrugal or Uraquay. In Portrugal even the hardliners who were agains legalization for users have come around and they shake their heads at the rest of Europe. There have been experiments in other European countries where heroin was given out to users in a medical clinic. Here's what they found: users were in almost all cases able to continue their professions. They all...all, tended to slowly lower their doses of their own choice. After ten years most stopped using because they wanted to. They found that most of the problems with the use have to do with interacting with criminals and getting the street crap laced witht he street crap. There's much more on the lies we are told about the war on drugs in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/16204 ... bl_vppi_i1

Yes, the idea is to treat drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

Prohibition has been the best friend of organised crime for a century or more. I believe that resistance by politicians to decriminalisation is not in good faith, or rarely is. They know the statistics and reports as well as we do. They know prohibition is an expensive disaster and ultimately takes and destroys many more lives than regulation.

However, they have feigned ignorance of this for many years now to maintain their corrupt links with organised crime and alcohol and affiliated industries who are afraid of losing their monopoly. They are aided by big media players with considerable investments in the gaming and liquor industries.

Prohibition is essentially a machine that converts young lives into liquor and prison industry profits and political capital.

...including the ones you can commit suicide with; no prescription required.

Greta wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 11:49 pm Yes, the idea is to treat drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

Prohibition has been the best friend of organised crime for a century or more. I believe that resistance by politicians to decriminalisation is not in good faith, or rarely is. They know the statistics and reports as well as we do. They know prohibition is an expensive disaster and ultimately takes and destroys many more lives than regulation.

However, they have feigned ignorance of this for many years now to maintain their corrupt links with organised crime and alcohol and affiliated industries who are afraid of losing their monopoly. They are aided by big media players with considerable investments in the gaming and liquor industries.

Prohibition is essentially a machine that converts young lives into liquor and prison industry profits and political capital.

And then the war on drugs - which in the us was specifically started as a consciously racist practice (the promoters were open wiht each other about the racist aspects) - gives a lot of power to people who want it. There is money in it and it also makes society more like some people like society to be: war-ish.

My general inclination is in favor of the statement but it is too absolute. Except for drugs that may be extremely dangerous to third parties, they should not be prohibited, but State regulation may be required. What I would emphatically reject is the global "war on drugs", a political myth created 50 years ago when President Nixon declared drugs "public enemy number one". This myth has been embraced by politicians generally and sold to the masses in spite of its total failure in terms of possible or likely beneficial impact from lower addiction on the one hand and, on the other hand, the cost of enforcement in terms of billions of dollars, millions of lives and mass incarceration. Drugs should be subject to rules on content disclosure, quality control, warnings and limitations imposed on users preventing dangerous use.

"Oxy Doc" Martin Tesher, M.D., was convicted by a federal jury in 2018 of prescribing Oxycotin and Fentynal to a patient who died from an overdose. Tesher faced up to 20 years imprisonment for reckless indifference to life. I cite this misuse of a legal drug prescription as evidence that the unrestricted distribution of dangerous substances based on greed, misinformation, or sociopathic indifference can lead to serious loss of life or long term damage to health and basic functioning.

The dilemma of all governmental regulation is that a majoritarian authority must compel a resistant minority to give up certain freedoms of choice. The liberty-minded resistor argues, "it's my life, stay out of it." The state prosecutes with the counterargument that certain behaviors are inimical to the public good, and are not to be among the liberties accorded its citizens in a civilized society. So the focus is not on the harm one does to oneself, but the harm one does to another. The criminal act is the taking of life without legal justification. The reason we empower the government is to protect this fundamental interest for all of us. When a jury convicts, it acts on behalf of the community to say, "this action must not be allowed. It must be punished for the good of us all, or the result will be a community where none of us are safe."

So then, if currently illegal recreational drugs are to be made legal, a vast apparatus of regulation must be put in place, an enforcement system must be equipped to deal quickly with violations, and a health care system must be funded to care for the inevitable casualties. I also agree with those comments that state some drugs may be so addictive and destructive that recreational is categorically irrational and impose too high a social cost.