Where the liberalists must draw the line.

[robnibg]

Recently, western culture has seen a wave of liberal ideas sweep into regular politics. In particular, there appears to be a tendency to push the government back furhter and further. A kind of "I want to do with my body want I want and it's none of the governemnt's business!" attitude. In a way, I agree, but there are a few faults with this argument i would like to point out.

 

In particular, we have seen many people question the legal attitudes towards drugs.

 

Why legalising drugs would be a bad idea

 

When it comes to tackling drug problems, many people are falsely led to believe that the root cause of all drug related problems is the fact that criminalizing of a substance leads to a black market/ illicit trade, with the result being a poor quality substance in circulation. Although history has proven that this is true to some extent, those who believe that legalising of drugs would be a solution are mislead. Although the substances added to street drugs (brick dust, paint thinning fluid, rat poison, shoe polish, dried babies milk, cleaning agents etc) are unpleasant, they are not what get people hooked. Almost all illegal drugs would be just as addictive if Pharmaceutical companies manufactured them, and so legalisation would clearly be a bad idea.

 

This isn’t just theory- this has been proven around the world. Compare Afghanistan where heroin is legal, (and where 1.7% of the population is addicted) and the U.K where it is not, and less than 0.6% are addicted. Of course, there would be some people disciplined and responsible enough to use drugs safely, but they would be a minority. Look how many people can’t use alcohol responsibly-how many would be able to use anything more potent responsibly?

 

How to determine whether or not a substance should be legalised:

 

A) If more than 50% of people are responsible enough to use the drug safely, it should be legalised.

 

OR

 

:confused: The substance (alcohol, nicotine, heroin etc) should only be made available to those who can pass a test that proves they are responsible enough to use the substance they apply for.

 

People claim that they are responsible for themselves and that the government has no right to “mother” them. It is often assumed that because someone is 18, they will be mature enough to drink alcohol etc. Although there is a correlation between age and maturity, it is clearly a weak one. There are people, who are mature enough to drink at the age of 10, whilst others are clearly extremely irresponsible at the age of 30. From what I can see, the only way to determine when a person is mature enough or not to use any substance is by making the applicant pass a test, to see whether they know enough or not about the substance they wish to use, regardless of their age.

 

Essentially, this is the way to save lives and cater for those who are responsible enough.

 

The role of the government in protecting us:

 

People claim that they are responsible for themselves and that the government has no right to “mother” them. The reality is that there are so many things in the modern world of which we are ignorant of, that we cannot go through life checking each and every product we use to see if it is safe. When I eat a tube of smarties, it’s good to know that to do so is safe, and that I need not check each and every ingredient myself for its safety. Fundamentally, we need the government to act as the ultimate authority in telling us what’s safe-we cannot possibly know all these things ourselves.

 

Beyond this, it is worth noting just how many people are not fully responsible for them selves. Although obese people may be perfectly nice people, they are likely to have less than average self-discipline and so need to be given some guidance, and so this is where it would help if the government forced food manufacturers to reduce caloric content of their foodstuffs.

 

Where to draw the line

 

So where to draw the line? When can we decide what is good for us? Well put it like this: if the individual requires scientific knowledge to make a decision, then the government has the role of telling us if it is safe or unsafe.

With food and medicines the government is reponsible, but with wearing a seatbelt for example, only the individual is responsible.

 

Something for the ultra-liberalists to chew on.

[Dobin]

Although i agree with you on many aspects, I see no reason to not legalize marijuana. I live in Canada, (and Vancouver at that..) where it is already pseudo legal. From everything I've read and seen of it, it is no where near as dangerous as alcohol, which is already legal. I'm not saying legalize all drugs, as yes, many are very dangerous to everyones health, even those around the users. But people high on marijuana prefer to sit around, stare at things, play video games,a no eat food. Rarely will they try anything stupid, or hurt other people, especially compared to people that are drunk. Meh, my 2 cents.

[robnibg]

I did wonder if anyone would point at that particular one...it is worth noting that some (not many) but some drugs are not dangerous/addictive for humans. Read this study:

 

I can't add it yet cos of my post count....:hihi:

 

However, the jury is still out on whether or not marijuana has physcological effects. :lol:

[Edella]

Compare Afghanistan where heroin is legal, (and where 1.7% of the population is addicted) and the U.K where it is not, and less than 0.6% are addicted..

According to this document from the Ministry of Counter Narcotics in Afghanistan, dated 17 Dec. 2005 :http://www.mcn.gov.af/eng/downloads/documents/drug_law.pdf, heroin use is NOT legal in the Afghanistan.

 

Excerpt -

 

Article 27:

Consumption of illegal drugs, and treatment of dependant persons or addicts

 

1. Any person who uses or possesses for the purpose of personal consumption any

substance or mixture containing a substance listed in Tables 1 through 4, other

than as authorized for medical treatment or by this law, shall be punished as

follows:

(a) Heroin, morphine, and cocaine, or any mixture containing those

substances: 6 months to 1 year imprisonment and a fine between 20,000 to

50,000 Afs.

[robnibg]

It was legal before the invasion...

[Edella]

It was legal before the invasion...

You did state that heroin is legal in Afghanistan, which led me to believe the stats were current. And considering the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islamic Law during its rule (1995 until 2001), I find it hard to believe heroin was legal for domestic consumption in those years.

 

Compare Afghanistan where heroin is legal, (and where 1.7% of the population is addicted) and the U.K where it is not, and less than 0.6% are addicted.

If you could provide a source and a date for these numbers, and your contention that heroin (was?) legal in Afghanistan, I would be grateful.

[Cedars]

I am really not sure where you are going with this, so excuse me if I havent grasped the point you are trying to make correctly.

 

 

Why legalising drugs would be a bad idea

 

Almost all illegal drugs would be just as addictive if Pharmaceutical companies manufactured them, and so legalisation would clearly be a bad idea.

 

Look how many people can’t use alcohol responsibly-how many would be able to use anything more potent responsibly?

 

How to determine whether or not a substance should be legalised:

 

A) If more than 50% of people are responsible enough to use the drug safely, it should be legalised.

 

OR

 

:confused: The substance (alcohol, nicotine, heroin etc) should only be made available to those who can pass a test that proves they are responsible enough to use the substance they apply for.

 

The flaw I see in this argument is, you have no idea how many people use [insert drug of choice here] vs how many become addicts. You say "look at how many people cant use alcohol responsibly..." How many exactly is this vs how many who drink?

 

Doctors write out MILLIONS of prescriptions each year for the pharmacutical equivalent of many street drugs and a very small percentage of these people become 'addicts'.

 

It is very likely people who smoke marijuana would result in more than 50% do not use irresponsibly. Most of the people I knew who got wrapped up in cocaine use in the 80s did not get caught doing anything wrong and did not steal or commit other crimes to obtain their drug (other than the illegality of the drug itself). I am sure that more than 50% would report no ill effects other than the high cost of the drug. Many of them will tell you it was the slimmest they have ever been in their lives.

 

As far as your Afghanistan example, I believe you are mistaken. The Soviets invaded in 1980 and while there was addiction within the ranks of the soldiers, it wasnt because heroin was legal. There was a black market trade in this drug then as there is now. After the taliban took power, the northern alliance grew poppies to fund their war, and Afghanistan had the lowest number of poppy fields in many years. Before the Soviet invasion, I cannot say whether heroin was legal there. There was a short period of time when heroin was legal in some European countries, Sweden I think, possibly the Netherlands. There were problems with addiction during this time period, but it was more to do with an experiment phase (its legal lets try it) over-indulgence, lack of education on use, rather than an oh-my-gawd-its-evil, in my humble opinion.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I enjoy being a "liberalist" and not just a "liberal."

 

So is that like, someone who studies liberals or what? Can you put ear tags on them and release them back into their natural habitats of coffee shops and organic food stores?

 

Okay, off topic.

 

On topic - what precisely would the "irresponsible" use of drugs look like? Certain folks would probably tell you that ANY use of ANY drug was irresponsible. Other people would tell you that only when it impacts other areas of your life are you being irresponsible. Is there a "responsible" level of using crystal meth?

 

So, first you need to get everyone to at least provisionally agree on what constitutes "responsible" levels of drug use.

 

TFS

[robnibg]

Okay...not got long to reply, so sorry I had to rush through all of this....excuse any typo's.....

 

The point with alcohol is that although it is a very safe drug, it is clearly not safe enouhg for the number of idiots around. It safe enough to be legal though, because a) it's common knowledge how much can be used safely and :lol: more than 50% can use it responsibly. It would be better to make people pass a test though, before they can use it.

 

was legal under the Taliban. I have proof available, but I can't post links until I've got a few more posts.

 

Responsible use is using it without getting addcited or doing serious damage to oneself.

 

Last but not least, the only reason why many presciption drugs do not ruin people, is because the prescription they are given carefuly regualtes how much they can have at any one time. Ultimately, a prescription is what we need for people who want to use any substance "recreationally".

[Buffy]

Well, maybe you ought to take a look at what the conservativists have to say about the subject....

 

The War on Drugs is Lost

 

Join forces with Bill Buckley, George Schultz, Milton Friedman and a host of other staunch conservativists and support legalization of drugs!

 

Used to be that conservatives were for privacy rights and the minimalization of government, but with all these Big Government Conservatives--mostly from the "everyone who is not a Christian is a terrorist, commie, traitor" wingnut end of the spectrum--trying to create a Christian nation, being "conservative" now means being nothing of the sort.

 

Republican Liberalist Feminazi,

Buffy

[robnibg]

I'm only young, and so I haven't really had an enourmous amount of experience, but from what i have seen, conservatives have been a disaster for our country. (The U.K) That's just another dumb idea from old fashioned and self righteous people.