In the 1960s, "drugs" became symbols of youthful rebellion, social upheaval, and political dissent. The drug scheduling system was created and the government deemed certain pharmaceuticals such as (MDMA, LSD, Psylocybin) in schedule 1 to have "no medicinal value". Proven addictive compounds like nicotine and alcohol were not part of this scheduling process. Additionally, the government halted scientific research and made other "drug" use a highly criminal behavior punishable by prison and high fines. The American Society of Addiction Medicine defines addiction as "a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry."Not all drugs are addictive, some are more than others, and not all people develop addictions as certain people are more vulnerable to addiction. As a result, many people are unaware of the safety and efficacy of drugs. The "a drug is a drug" abstinence principle is unjust and neglects natural human and youth curiosity.
It is also fundamentally irrational as a universal law to saw that "you cannot treat your condition how you choose, and you have to pay someone you cannot afford to treat your condition for you." Since accessible health is not a universal law, then there should not be laws punishing people for seeking to provide care for themselves however they choose, even if it is incorrect. But we do not know how incorrect is precisely because the research is not fully complete, understood, or unavailable.
Kant would agree since we are all autonomous and rational agents by universal law. But how can one be fully rational and autonomous if they cannot make choice decisions based on fundamentally truthful information? I understand not everyone is capable of making complex health decisions, but why does that mean we should not educate them to do the best they can and develop / cultivate their autonomy and make these tough decisions for themselves?
The choice should be in the hands of the people. When we lose access to information, we our ability to utilize our autonomy and thereby are oppressed. Thus, the real crime is in not providing information and healthcare - ignoring research and not pursuing the truth.
One of the many fundamental injustice from our government is the claim "ignorance isn't an excuse". After this claim, subsequently the government halts research and the stream of information. If making an informed decision is not there, then how can you hold someone accountable for their condition?
Consequentially, the USA has 5 times the worlds total prison population, the highest addiction rates, and drug abuse rates have stayed roughly the same even with strict punishment laws such as mandatory minimums.
These specific and strict drug laws have generated a demand for new, "unresearched chemicals" (research chemicals) on the market that are causing harm, such as bath salts as people attempt to produce a less-illegal MDMA. Legal drugs are being more widely abused like prescription opiates, which are leading some users into heroin addiction.
I look forward to a future where drug and mental health policies are shaped by science and compassion rather than political hysteria.
Making you accessible to information...
ReplyDeleteThe war is on information. Know the information, end the war.
http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/07/14/0269881110378371
http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war
http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction
You could argue that Mill would want to reform the drug policy because doing so would be the most utile. It would give the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of pain to the greatest amount of people if the drug policy shifted to one that focused on education or rehabilitation rather than harsh punishment. C Also, if you legalized certain drugs that were proven to not be addictive, it could yield economic benefits for society.
ReplyDeleteSandel shows that what society values changes and that this does not determine justice. Currently, our society values prescription drugs. Many of these medications, such as those used to treat ADHD, often contain substances that are generally considered illegal. Since he says that what society values is morally arbitrary, the current system is unlucky for those involved because I doubt the current policies of prison and drugs would be decided by those behind a veil of ignorance.
I think this debate is very interesting. I agree with Hillary that, under Utilitarian principles, legalizing certain drugs would be justified because of the economic wealth it would bring to the society. Also, from a Kantian or Nozickian (is that a word?) perspective, the individual right to freedom makes the drug policy unjust. The right to chose whether or not we do drugs could be considered just because it arguable that drugs only harm the person who does them. But although they only directly harm the person that does them, it could also be argued that drugs infringe on the freedom of those close to the actual user of drugs.
ReplyDeleteIn America, some of our drug policies are deeply flawed. Especially our crack/cocaine policy. Crack and cocaine are chemically the same drug, but the sentence received for doing crack is 18 times harsher than the sentence for doing cocaine. Why is this? You might ask. Well, crack is predominately used by poor minorities, while cocaine is more expensive and used by middle/upper class white people. Basically, this sentence disparity exists to disadvantage poor minorities, who are seen as more likely to be criminals. I think our drug policies need major reform to fix these inequalities that I consider a violation of rights.
oh and here's an article about the crack/cocaine sentencing http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/01/justice/crack-cocaine-sentencing/
ReplyDeleteTyler, this is definitely an interesting debate. I, and many others would be interesting in the truthful availability of information pertaining to drugs. However, I think we have to be careful not to go in the radically opposite direction of, "drugs really aren't that bad," because I have seen drugs ruin peoples lives, and they do so everyday.
ReplyDeleteI do like how you pointed out the overpopulated prison system in America, which is largely due to minor drug related issues. These issues are not solved through harsh punishments like prison, but can be solved in better ways. Your libertarian standpoint on drugs could be back with research. I would focus on drugs and prison sentencing as that is a heated debate in America today. Although, be careful not to go in the radically opposite direction.
Morgan, drugs are neither good nor bad. They do not have morals. They just do things. They have extremely complex effects and effect some people differently. In some situations they are therapeutic and some situations they cause more physiological damage than therapeutic effects. Some have good therapeutic effects but a low lethal dose range etc etc. A drug is a molecule Morgan. And I would make the argument that you have seen unscientific and political hysteria based drug laws ruin peoples lives everyday. My thesis on drugs, fluctuates, directly with the new research. I do not have a view point, I present information cultivated through scientific rigor and that's it.
ReplyDeleteBut everything I presented is 100% backed with research, nothing else. Saying drugs are good or bad is an extremely reductionist and simplistic view point that people need to be careful of. I posted all the pub med links if you are interested.