My letter to Tierney - re meth/drug war

[rlev1223]

I can't believe that, now that i finally agree with you about something, I end up disagreeing.

It's good for you get back to the essential libertarianism of conservative philosophy. The stranglehold the whack jobs on the religious right have come to enjoy within the conservative movement and the Republican party -- long exemplified by the bilious Mr. Bennett -- needs to end, and fast. The "war on drugs" is another moral crusade destined only to suck resources and create criminals.

However, I can't be quite as supportive of your views about meth. Having known people who's lives were completely screwed up if not destroyed by the drug, I have to say that it's addictiveness and ability to wreak havoc on the mind and body put in a far different class than pot or even heroin. Coke might be a closer analog -- highly pleasurable while dangerously corrosivel.

In a sane society, perhaps a regulatory structure could be acheived that would decriminalize it, but only with health care opportunuties far beyond what we have now.

[Dez]

1. The drug war needs to end

It's destructive, and kills. So many people's lives are ruined by the drug war, not by the drugs themselves, it's the war which victimizes people far worse than the drugs.

A nation's highest AND lowest achievment tell how advanced that society is, and since we have a war in drugs, it shows just how backwards America really is.

[wli]

2. it's true, but not enough

Immediate blanket pardons for all drug-related charges and a major reorganization of the "prison system" including getting private profit incentives out of it completely need to happen also.

[necso]

3. The obvious (initial) line to draw

(to me) is the "right" to do as one pleases with one's own body. If anyone has any "rights" to anything, then these "rights" start with one's own body.

Now, of course, society should defend its members from those who would sell tainted goods, lie about or obscure actual contents, spread pollution, etc. And the costs to society related to specific behaviors are something that needs to be balanced against this "right to one's own body" (or any other asserted "right"). But there are (at least) two types of these costs.

One type of these costs is costs that society must bear (because of individual behavior), regardless of whether society chooses to or not. The spread of disease resistant bacteria is an example of these costs, and it is reasonable for society to try to restrict the use of drugs related to this problem. (Society is, however, failing in this.)

(And yeah, my pipe's exhaust shouldn't become your air. But everyone who drives a polluting vehicle is doing this to others... and you might be better off sucking on a tobacco pipe than a tailpipe.)

The second type of costs is costs that society could refuse to bear. And society could refuse to bear the medical costs of drug abuse, although it would be humane to do otherwise.

As for the other (specific, somewhat tangible) costs of drug abuse, for starters, talk about productivity is bogus, one sells one's services -- and is free to choose to not do so (drug induced haze or otherwise) -- and those who don't perform should be terminated. As for criminal costs, these should fall dramatically if drugs are legalized. (Talk about "moral values" here is also bogus, we are a society that drinks, uses tobacco, and takes huge quantities of OTC and prescription medicines that "make us feel better". Besides, getting high on hate, fear, anger, control and such primal emotions and drives is nothing to be bragging about.)

...

Any talk of inalienable "rights" is nothing more than a romantic assertion. Nature provides no evidence of an inalienable right beyond the (general) right to die -- and an eminently losable, fleeting right to do with your carcass as you like (and can) until then... which at any point may not be long.

And we cannot hope to defend this "right to one's own carcass" in it's entirety, because it has broader implications and impacts. But we should defend this "right" on every front, and we should fight every erosion of this "right" on the particulars of the individual case.

If we cannot raise the members of our society to resist temptation and seduction (these require no devil) in general (at least where to "fall" is clearly harmful), then our future is grim. And it matters little (on the highest levels) whether meth or motor oil is the cause of our downfall.

Of course, it would be helpful to provide some picture of (and an opportunity for) a life that is rewarding, satisfying, useful, meaningful, sustainable and reasonably prosperous (enjoyable even), while keeping to the path of wisdom.

I believe that one reasonable metric of a liberal society is the extent to which it does not make undesirable behavior illegal (within some bounds of greater harm done). Leaving open avenues to such undesirable behavior is a way of showing respect for choice and free will. And it is a way of coming to terms with the fact that all undesirable behavior cannot be criminalized out of existence -- and that we must be wise about what we tolerate and what we do not, and how we enforce this.

Generally, I favor giving things careful consideration, rendering some tentative judgment, coming up with a plan, projecting its likely outcomes and ways it can be gamed, and modifying this plan as necessary before enacting it -- and keeping a careful eye on how it works out. And plans that don't work should be changed or discarded.

Drug prohibition is not working, and it comes at terrible costs to society while flooding with money (and power) those who we do not wish to have it. It's long past time to make some changes... but I ain't holding my breath.

...

However, you have to tax people based on their ability to pay.

It's like Willie Sutton said.

And those who would have us operate according to God's law, generally, in practice, mean that we should operate according to their law. Normally, I find this a bad idea.