All drugs should be legal

Stormcloud · Post by **Stormcloud** » January 8th, 2014, 10:07 pm

Education to the dangers is paramount provided the education is not tainted with propaganda, scare mongering and mis information.

THERE IS NOTHING SO ATTRACTIVE TO A CHILD THAN A LIMIT

Post by **Sy Borg** » January 9th, 2014, 10:27 am

How much control should the government have over our consciousness? Hopefully as little as possible.

Why do we tolerate prohibition with its terrible human costs and terrible expense?

Regulation, tax and health advice seem like the smart thing to do. It would be a huge blow for organised crime.

Thinking critical · January 9th, 2014, 10:58 pm

I agree with Stromcloud, there needs to more education and a change in the mentality surrounding the social aspect of alcohol and drugs. Over New Years there were even more reports of fuelled up kids going around smacking un-expecting victims in the head, leaving one kid in critical condition due to serious head injuries as he was knocked out cold before his head stopped his fall on the way to the curb.

Drugs, alcohol and large gatherings is recipe for trouble.

Theboombody · Post by **Theboombody** » January 9th, 2014, 11:30 pm

pjkeeley wrote: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.

Is there an age limit? Should a 20 year old be able to decide what to put in their own body? What about a 10 year old? 2 year old?

Do I have a right to put radioactive material in my body and then go around contaminating everybody?

Why is this, "It's all about me and my rights," such a popular idea now? That's not the gist of John Locke's liberal philosophy. His liberal philosophy is that the people should give something to the state, and the state should give something back to them. It's not all one sided. It's not, "The state should give me everything." Before John Locke, cultural opinion was unbalanced in favor of the state, and now it's unbalanced in favor of the individual. Locke at least had a balance of some sort.

G-rated Shock Value - "No bad words. Just bad ideas."

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » January 10th, 2014, 7:48 am

Theboombody, personal liberty is much to be desired. However if our culture depends upon the ethic of maximising freedom, then personal liberty has to be curtailed the more that others are affected by what we do.

More and more of us live in cities and are physically dependent on each other for vital services. Liberty for a typical city dweller has therefore to be curtailed in proportion as her actions impinge upon others.

Liberty and freedom are different states.

Pastabake · Post by **Pastabake** » January 10th, 2014, 8:34 am

The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.

Relative rights are no rights at all.

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » January 10th, 2014, 8:55 pm

I cannot disagree with what you are saying but what I can say is that if every drug is legal what are the youth going to do? If every drug is legal, take this as an example a teen buys a heroin from a shop and then decides to use is as a pain killer. The world cannot say he cannot use heroin just because it is legal. Whereas if it’s illegal the world can say that using heroin as a pain killer is wrong because heroin is addictive. We are not entitled to say what is right and what is wrong to an individual, it is entirely up to him or her.

But it’s different in this situation because heroin is addictive not only mentally but physically as well; therefore if every drug is legal we cannot guide our loved ones or the mass to stop using drugs such as heroin just because it is legal.

Hog Rider · Post by **Hog Rider** » January 11th, 2014, 6:55 am

Theboombody wrote:
pjkeeley wrote: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.
Is there an age limit? Should a 20 year old be able to decide what to put in their own body? What about a 10 year old? 2 year old?

Do I have a right to put radioactive material in my body and then go around contaminating everybody?

Why is this, "It's all about me and my rights," such a popular idea now? That's not the gist of John Locke's liberal philosophy. His liberal philosophy is that the people should give something to the state, and the state should give something back to them. It's not all one sided. It's not, "The state should give me everything." Before John Locke, cultural opinion was unbalanced in favor of the state, and now it's unbalanced in favor of the individual. Locke at least had a balance of some sort.

G-rated Shock Value - "No bad words. Just bad ideas."

I also asked pjkeeley a similar question, but, I checked, he has not attended this Forum since October 16th, 2012!!

So I do not think we can expect an answer.

-- Updated January 11th, 2014, 6:02 am to add the following --

Pastabake wrote:The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.

Relative rights are no rights at all.

It might be useful for you to distinguish between rights and freedoms, as you seem to use them interchangeably.

In early times Man had many freedoms, but no rights at all.

The thing about rights is that they have been constructed, freedom has not. I think it is not fair to say that 'freedoms (or rights for that matter) have been constructively curtailed", when the case it that rights are a construct, that curtails freedom in the face of the wants of many. The simple fact that you can LIVE 'cheek by jowl' with neighbours is due to the fact that our freedoms to do as we might wish have been structured by rights. You are not free to enter the property of your neighbour, eat his food and rape his wife, because he now has the right to some protection under the law. RIghts give you the same, as your neighbour, the rights restrict freedoms for the protection of society in this case.

Stormcloud · Post by **Stormcloud** » January 11th, 2014, 7:08 am

"In early times man had many freedoms, but no rights at all" How would you know? Were you there?

Pastabake · Post by **Pastabake** » January 11th, 2014, 12:30 pm

Pastabake wrote: The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.

Relative rights are no rights at all.

Hog Rider wrote:It might be useful for you to distinguish between rights and freedoms, as you seem to use them interchangeably.

Where exactly have I done that then?

Hog Rider · Post by **Hog Rider** » January 15th, 2014, 6:53 pm

Stormcloud wrote:"In early times man had many freedoms, but no rights at all" How would you know? Were you there?

I've got a degree in Ancient History and Archeology, if that is any help to you. It's a bit of a no-brainer to a historian.

I can give you a bit of information if you like, but if you think a moment you know its true.

-- Updated January 15th, 2014, 5:55 pm to add the following --

Pastabake wrote:
Pastabake wrote: The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.

Relative rights are no rights at all.

Hog Rider wrote:It might be useful for you to distinguish between rights and freedoms, as you seem to use them interchangeably.
Where exactly have I done that then?

Exactly where I quoted you as confusing them.

Pastabake · Post by **Pastabake** » January 15th, 2014, 7:27 pm

What quote would that be? The quote you've highlighted makes a clear distinction between freedoms and rights.

Stormcloud · Post by **Stormcloud** » January 15th, 2014, 11:49 pm

We all know that "degrees" mean squat these days and they're often not worth the paper they're printed on. Unless you were actually 'there' your claims are mere assumptions. Your contribution makes alot of sense, Pastabake.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » January 16th, 2014, 7:20 am

Pastabake wrote:The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.

Relative rights are no rights at all.

What will happen when we are cheek by jowl with our neighbours is either individuals take a lot more responsibility for each other's welfare, and for the common good, or there will be a free for all when neighbours will be driven by fear of each other with terrible results.

Recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol are okay for superficial fun as long as the drugs don't unduly harm vulnerable consumers or lead to mayhem. Laws are needed to protect vulnerable consumers of recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol because those who sell recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol are to variable degrees greedy grabbers with few morals. In think that the decision to legalise recreational drugs should depend upon how much social or psychological harm the unadulterated drug does, for it's unlikely that anything comes without a social, medical, or psychological downside.

Pastabake · Post by **Pastabake** » January 16th, 2014, 8:45 am

Belinda I appreciate that, but my suggestion is that the hypothetical freedom of pre-history negates any such claims. What X does on their own out in the wilderness has nothing to do with anyone else. X might spend the totality of their life smoking cannabis eating 'shrooms and hunting elk ... that someone off in some village somewhere might think it's not right is patently irrelevant because while there is the freedom to do such things their opinion counts for naught.

The problem of rights only occurs once X decides to interact with other humans - which might be never - and would in any case last only as long as the interaction.

Hence my point is that this freedom has been constructively curtailed by those more powerful taking ownership of all the land, encouraging breeding, urbanisation and immigration etc ... to the present situation where there is no freedom just rights, because everything you do now involves some interaction with another human - even if it's just to remove your body after you've OD'd.

The obvious conclusion as to why X is not allowed to continue as before (aside from the fact that in practical terms everything is owned and there is no free space to be free in) is that X like everything else is now the property of the state.

Poor old X was delivered a fait accompli ... and while you are right that as we find ourselves in this situation we should act accordingly ... it leaves a bad taste in ones mouth because whether we want to admit it or not we have been enslaved.

No freedom, just rights and as those rights are contingent on the realities of the situation it turns out that in practical terms we have no rights at all.