Sunday, March 12, 2006

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

At last, something we can agree on. In my view, legalization of drugs is an idea whose time has come (to paraphrase Victor Hugo). Nevertheless, it's not going to happen anywhere if it doesn't first happen in the Netherlands -- the one country that has enough empirical evidence to dismiss disingenuous claims that pot leads to more serious addiction.

The only claim that I can accept about soft drugs is that they "may" be a causative factor in psychosis. But, as you pointed out, that is a matter of individual, not State, concern.

Matrixx8 (ip:80.61.62.195) 12 March 2006 - 23:52 uur

Disagreement is good. It forces you to test your beliefs and it wards off intellectual complacency. The pathological need for consensus in the Netherlands both baffles and frightens me.

That being said, yes, we agree on legalization. I am in favor of both economic and social liberalism. And I can't for the life of me understand why alcohol, nicotine and fluoxetine are legal - all substances which have been associated with multiple fatalities - whereas MDMA, cannabis and ayahuasca aren't (except if you join a certain church, and only for the latter). I would rather go to a party where everybody is mellow on E than boozed up and aggressive because of mass ingestion of cheap beer and wine.

Drug prohibition is a form of government endorsed - nay: government sponsored - puritanism which has no place in a free society. I'll decide for myself which chemicals I want to ingest, thank you very much - and can I have another triple espresso please, because I really need my caffeine.

The arguments in favor of legalization were excellently summed up in The Economist, weekly of choice of classical liberals around the globe, at http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/references/media/1996_economist_1.shtml If you want an American author, Jacob Sullum is your man. http://www.reason.com/sayingyes/

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:84.245.41.171) 12 March 2006 - 0:21 uur

Thanks for the links.

As for agreeing to disagree -- or consensus, as you call it --, it strikes me as quite a logical, scientific approach to political and social issues. After all, although some people don't seem to realize it, one could argue that we are living in a post-ideological world where legitimate differences of opinion exist. The only objective standard we have is science and academic research. And the information that science provides is often tenative or incomplete -- certainly when it comes to the evolutionary workings of human social and political activities. Anything else seems to be driven by our belief engine.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html

Matrixx8 (ip:80.61.62.195) 12 March 2006 - 11:24 uur

I must say that I am torn by this subject. Which seems to make me suspicious to both sides that have alreasy made up their minds! I work with drug addicts, and I have to tell you that it is not a pretty sight; nor is it morally trivial to have that to happen to someone.

At the same time, I see nothing wrong with recreational use of any drug you can name. In particular, it is outrageous to imagine giving massive prison sentences to people who are doing nothing more that enjoying themselves. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that there is a puritanical streak in American culture that frowns of pleasure, particularly easily obtained (and thus unearned) ecstacy.

I lean toward some type of decriminalization, or a system of misdemeanors. At the same time, I think drug liberationists have to accept the fact that drug use and drug addiction will rise with increased availability. Please explain how a society is to deal with that! Probably 5-10% rates of drug addiction is not a trivial social ill, but most pro-drug people skip over that issue. Disingenuous, to say the least.

Alcohol, caffiene, and nicotine are all legal for historical reasons, and the fact that they can be used "responsibly" by most people who encounter them. I am not sure the same thing can be said about heroin or crack cocain. I've used them both, and I have to say that it is difficult to imagine them being integrated easily into any presently available societly. This is a genuine problem! Do not simply dismiss everyone who hesitates as some kind of redneck Bible-beater. Thanks.

godfodder (ip:68.226.124.86) 12 March 2006 - 22:39 uur

Actually you all have been whipped by American drug propaganda about a phantom menace:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-addiction-real.html
Is Addiction Real?

M. Simon (ip:69.95.140.82) 12 March 2006 - 16:45 uur

Why do people take http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html Heroin?

M. Simon (ip:69.95.140.82) 12 March 2006 - 16:48 uur

The trouble with Islam:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/11/origins-of-islamic-rage.html

The best medicine:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2005/09/cannabis-is-best-medicine.html

M. Simon (ip:69.95.140.82) 12 March 2006 - 16:50 uur

Great video clip.

The only problem with mdma is that it's too good. Kind of scary how good. I stopped when I had kids but, wow, it was a blast while it lasted.

chip (ip:24.86.20.6) 12 March 2006 - 2:17 uur

Comment