Now if Gennady hadn’t expressed his own views on the negative nature of mind-altering drug use, would I have learned that it can enhance a user’s creativity? Probably not.

Everybody’s got an opinion on something. Should we really demand that the authors refrain from the expression of their opinions just because they don’t have a direct bearing on their arguments they are making in ethics or economics? Gentlemen, relax. (And pass me the joint.)

There *are* social consequences to drug abuse that go beyond the abuser, but a great many of them are made worse by prohibition not better. Inflated prices require the addict to commit crimes to support their habit for example. If drugs were legal, they would be relatively affordable (ask yourself when was the last time you heard of someone being mugged for cigarettes). A person with a family has an incentive to get help with their addiction, but if the addiction is illegal it is not so easy to do that. Prohibition might keep a few extra people from ever touching a drug, but studies suggest that it has little effect on abuse rates (abuse being categorically different from simple use).

As for the other problem, throwing medical uses for cannabis aside, the usefulness of mind altering drugs are well documented. The range of people who have used mind altering drugs to increase their creativity for some useful endeavor is endless. It’s not just musicians, but also engineers and scientists. “Recreational” drugs aren’t just about recreation (although they can certainly be used for that too). The trap is if a person believes that the drug makes them better in every way when in reality it improves some natural abilities at the expense of others (until the effects wear off). If used carefully by the right people, drugs could directly lead to great discoveries (creative breakthroughs) in any number of sciences. That may be hard to imagine for a person so biased against the idea that mind altering drugs might be useful to society, but it doesn’t change the truth of the statement.

The less the more one day, the more the more the other day. Well, life!

Ah, no. No irony this time: me too I’m being quite thrilled by the idea that a libertarian concept seems to work well, in fact. More expensive policies gives you more “risk coverage” and that doesn’t bother me one bit as it is only fair… as long as the principle of liability is accepted by everyone.

In fact I’m eager to learn more about that libertarian insurance model. You may wonder what will happen to a person wrecking someone else’s property, with no property of his own to pay the damages back for instance… will he be “forced” to work (i.e. in a confined surrounding perhaps, because fleeing his responsibilities would be stealing?) and slowly pay back (problem: how can possibly his productivity be measured objectively in a confined surrounding ?) Is that some kind of acceptable coercion to the libertarians?

Libertarians forget that there are two sides of a balance sheet. Money is never wasted, it is transferred. Dope money on both sides of the “war” is being transferred exactly the way our Big Brothers want it transferred.

I think beyond admitting this, libertarians tend to promote the view that much of the insurance aspects of the state that people want, could, would and should be provided on a voluntary basis by insurance companies in a free market. When you say of this it’s “a great new kind of freedom!”, I’m not sure to interpret that as meaning you don’t think it is all that much better than what we have under the state, or if you do. But let me argue why it would be better. It would be voluntary. It means that the consumer dictates how much or how little, if at all, he is monitored for drug use. The insurance companies would try to correlate drug use with accidents and if they could do it, they would attempt to put this risk in a different pool at a different cost. It would change the whole question from morality to insurance risks.

In respect to the question of mismanaged insurance firms, the answer is the same as always. Private firms are in the business of serving their customers for the ultimate goal of making a profit. A poorly managed company just cannot compete with well managed companies in a free market. The former will fail, while the latter will prosper. Also, remember that what you fear is what we have currently. The only time a poorly managed operation can continue operation is when it holds special coercive privilege of government monopoly. In that case, it is quite sensible to worry that the operation will be mismanaged and even that money will be embezzled and that the criminals behind the embezzling will get away with it Scott free. It’s classic.

but forgot to comment on all the destruction going on south of the border.

the 15,000 killed by the drug finance war in colombia; the corruption of politicians and the judiciary all over the place….etc.

olmedo

I doubt decriminalization would affect usage rates that much one way or the other. Marijuana use among Dutch youth has remained the same or even declined since decriminalization. I’ve been to Amsterdam and seen the “dope cafes” there. Most of their patrons are tourists from America and England. The native Dutch seem to think pot is just a big bore.

As for hard drugs, the main increase in use might be among those who currently abuse legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco but are deterred from other drugs because of the legal status or, more likely, price. Some alcoholics might also become junkies and some chain-smokers might also become potheads. It’s unlikely that teetotalers and non-smokers are going to rush out and become crack or heroin users just because the laws change. That might happen in some cases but it would probably be exceedingly rare.

Yet I agree with Paul Edwards, that’s nothing new or different than with other crimes. It just makes clear what relates to the question of judging cigarettes, pot, cocaine “dangerous” or not, and why insurance policies are to replace the State in many aspects. People will then decide which kind of contract they like the best… the very expensive ones that never test you, or the very cheap one that tests you every month… a great new kind of freedom!

In a libertarian society, call it a license, or a “Do you take drugs?” question on your insurance policy… Not speaking about the questions on job/school application, and working contract. If he breaches such contract, one would loose his job and loose his insurance though…

My concern with the competing insurance businesses is that obviously they will be large companies as to reduce the costs effectively, yet if they do not calculate well, or mismanage the liability money, who is going to pay for the victims? I know there’s an article on the forum mentioning limited liability for companies, but I haven’t had the time to read it yet…

One good place to start is at Cato Institute report “Thinking of Drug Legalization” – it has that nice table of actuarial data in it comparing dangers of illicit and legal drugs per user.

Another good place for propaganda-free information on drugs is http://www.erowid.org.

And, yes, illegal drugs do have their good uses, if used responsibly, just like tobacco (which seems to slow Alzheimer’s and takes care of some sympthoms of schizophrenia), alcohol (all-around antiseptic). Heroin is a powerful analgetic, *less* addictive than modern synthetic opiates like Vicodin and such, and an effective anxiolythic (alleviates anxieties). Cocaine is an antidepressant, stimulant, and topical analgetic (Dr. Freud called it “a wonder drug”). MDMA (Ecstasy) is a very powerful antidepressant and was shown to be effective in establishing patient-therapist contact and threatment of some social phobias, and seems to help high-functioning autists to learn social skills. Marijuana is improving appetite in cancer patients, relieves high eye pressure, combats nausea, relieves pain, and reduces anxieties and nervousness.

The idiotic government regulations deprive a lot of people from the cheap and effecive medications in form of the illegal drugs and their analogs. Just talk to anyone with chronic pain for some first-hand accounts of how doctors avoid prescribing controlled substances.

Murdering and torturing (by withdrawal of otherwise available medicine) people just because someone somewhere’s having unapproved sort of fun — that’s the government for us.

I just want to think the concept of Private Property a little bit more.

I believe the assumption is if it only effects your private property, the government then has no right to interfere.

Extending this a bit further along the lines of nuclear capabilities/WMD, then it should be ok for countries to build, develop, purchase and sell WMD without any interference from anybody else. The key is I imagine to figure out the ‘potential to incur harm’ to other’s private property which drives the world nuclear order.

I am not claiming that it is correct or I endorse it, I just think that one of the important points to consider in “de-criminalising” drug use/Sale/purchase is the potential to harm others and other’s private property.

I also want to think through the argument presented before along the lines of …Drugs Users, may under the influence of the substance of choice commit an illegal act, and have to be treated like any other person comitting an illegal act.

Again this does not take cognizance of the ‘potential to incur harm’ angle. Is drug use contributing to increase in the user’s ‘potential to do harm’?

I do not have the relavent drunken man’s pole (read “statistics”) or any proposed measure to assess the “potential to do harm” but I imagine this if there was, it would still have to be regulated by a governing body, which will upset my libertarian brethern.

An interesting Afterthought
—————————-

In the future perfect world envisioned by Robert A. Wilson in his book Schrodinger’s Cat(there are two types of crimes :1) Against a person (Murder, rape, etc) and 2) Against the existing societal/ governmental norms, which are victim less crimes so to speak.

The criminals in the first category went to a place called Hell (a place on earth with no rules/regulators, knock down drag out, winner takes all kind of a place) and the the criminals in the second category went to a space station to populate other worlds along the lines of their appreciated ideology.

So maybe two separate worlds is the answer?

Eric V. Encina
Roxas City, Capiz, Philippines
ericencina@yahoo.com

1) It claims that drug use/users are ‘inmoral’. If that’s so, then,
what’s the propper adjective for the governments and armies that
massacred some 200 millions people during the 20th century ? ‘Misguided idealists’ perhaps ?

2) I’m sure that the govt. directly benefits from the artificially high
prices for drugs – for instance, taxing firms engaged in so called ‘money laundry’.
In a word, the govt. is the main partner in the drug bussiness. Did the author mention that ?

3) I guess drug gangsters are no angels, yet to say that
, while government bureaucracy may be frustrating, a bureaucrat will not shoot a citizen who displeases him on the spot.
is way too flattering for the state…and wrong. See point 1.

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I’ve enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience

??