Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession

With respect to crime, no one need profit from it but the VICTIM of the crime should most surely be made whole by the criminal.

Exactly right. I don't know how we got away from that fundamental premise of justice, nor who first invented the idea that all crimes are against the state, but justice has suffered ever since. (Why on earth should the victim be forced to sue in civil court in order to be made whole?!)

Conversely, if there is no victim to make whole, because there was NO VICTIM of the "crime," then no crime was committed, no matter that someone may have broken a law (that probably should not be on the books, ANYWAY!).

Why am I not surprised to hear you take that position? :-) Ah well, I believe we've both presented our best arguments on the matter and still disagree. Best we can do for now.

...the idea that all crimes are against the state...

We see all the time, particularly with financial and "consumer protection" type laws, cases of fraud against numbers of individuals where the state AG comes along and files charges - and the remedy always seems to be huge fines paid to the state. And you're right. Where is the justice in that?

Regarding victimless crime: Some crimes are always victimless, others sometimes victimless, and I generally agree if there's no victim there ought be no crime. That's not to say the state can never be a victim though.

This has been a great discussion even though it has strayed somewhat from the posted topic. Here the three of us have a more or less common understanding of our society and it's founding principles but in our small disagreements we see how not so clear the boundaries really are. Much more in common though, plenty at which to chisel away down the threads.

See ya.

A couple years ago, the state of Texas prosecuted TXU Electric for overcharging its customers. The penalty? A multi-million-dollar fine - payable to the state of Texas.

So let's see... you steal from people, you get caught, you have to repay what you stole to the people you stole it from? Nope. You have to reimburse the government. I count TWO thieves here, one of them with the law on their side.

I generally agree if there's no victim there ought be no crime.

IIRC, it was the medieval Scots who had only four crimes: treason, cowardice, sodomy, and one I can't remember. These are all crimes against the people itself. Everything else was to be settled between the parties involved. ("Blood feuds" and so forth.) The criminal-civil code of ancient Israel likewise proscribed certain behaviors the victim of which was the people itself. (Just food for thought as we ponder good laws vs. bad ones.)

Yes, it's been a most interesting and thought-provoking discussion. Thank you both - and everyone else!

A nation full of drugged citizens is not going to be the America that gave us our liberty.

YAWN. Lets take away liberty in order to promote liberty. I think I will pass.

Pathetically today, millions of young people are getting in bondage to Satan through the use of drugs without even knowing it.

Thats redicilous.

The supporters of the unjust, unconstitutional, and un-American WOD are getting desperate.

Charles Manson is a typical example of one who became possessed by evil spirits through drugs

Give me a break. Charles Manson is an example of an EVIL PERSON. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Another dislussional supporter of the WOD.

Shallow thinking. What’s your plan?

Drug abuse is a mental health issue, not an Law Enforcement issue and definately NOT an issue for the government to decide.

If you feel drug use is a threat to liberty, and in order to combat that threat, you must sacrifice EVERYONES liberty, YOU are exactly what the founders of this country WARNED OF. A DANGER TO THE CONSITUTION.

Drug use is not a moral issue, man has been abusing drugs since his creation. Drug addicts are indviduals who are sick with a health issue. Sick people are treated for there symptoms, not punished.

IF YOU BREAK A LAW in order to obtain drugs for your addiction, you have commited a criminal act and will be punished.

Outlawing substances for fear of abuse by a certain group of people is UNCONSITUTIONAL AND WRONG.

Government has no right to interfere in a recreational activity. It’s called FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

If someone wants to get high for fun, let them. ITS called personal responsibilty.

Isn’t it in our purview to determine for ourselves what sort of community we’ll have? Of course we should begin with a presumption of liberty. But that doesn’t mean liberty is a trump card for the settling of every question.

LF, I've been following your comments on this thread and I'm impressed with the thoughtfulness and civility you've demonstrated. I'm especially glad to see a non-libertarian embrace the idea of a presumption of liberty. I hope you don't mind if I join the party a little late, so to speak.

You seem to want to strike a balance between protecting the liberty of individuals and promoting the welfare of the community. How well do you think the following compromise would meet your ideals?

I. Communities are allowed to prohibit private use of a drug only if:
a). the drug has a substantial likelihood to cause the user to immediately violate the rights of others (e.g. a drug that drives one into a berserker frenzy), or
b). the drug has such addictive power and is so expensive (even when legal) that an addict could not reasonably expect to support his habit without violating the rights of others (e.g. stealing televisions or mugging).

II. In addition, communities would be free to:
a). regulate public intoxication or public consumption of any drug, and
b). require a clean drug test before providing any social services.

To me, this seems like a compromise that would be acceptable to both libertarians and the vast bulk of conservatives. I believe most libertarians would accept this approach because it is rooted in protecting others from an almost certain violation of their rights...one of the few (or perhaps only) legitimate roles of government recognized by libertarians. It's really not that different from prohibiting people from firing a gun into a crowd.

I think conservatives would find this acceptable as well since it addresses their primary concern with drug use, which is the danger posed by having desperate addicts running around in the streets. It also prevents having to pay for lazy drug users or having one's children exposed to drug use while in public.

Other than that, if someone chooses to waste away their time and their money getting high in private, what business is it of the community? I suppose one could argue for even more stringent restrictions on the grounds that drug users are unproductive, or distasteful, or don't vote the way we like. But I don't think we want to empower governments - even local governments - to force us into becoming more productive, or more aesthetically pleasing, or heaven forbid, to vote the way the majority wants us to vote.

Do you think my approach would be an acceptable compromise between preserving liberty and protecting the community?

Ah, but who's going to make those determinations, and on what sort of foundation? Just as with the the first drug prohibitions in this country & all the others, everyone is going to chime in with their particular brand of expertise. You can't make it just a matter of science, it is cherry picked as much as anything (global warming). If you've read all of this thread you know there are folks going around saying drugs cause evil spirits to enter the mind and every bag of smack has it's own little spook inside waiting to unleash the next Charles Manson. You know there has to be some kind of hook and the interracial sex thing isn't going to play so well next time around. So, easy enough to say there's plenty of hokum and not much of substance to justify restraining an individual who hasn't caused any harm.

At the same time you can look at something like meth (for example - surely not the only "bad" thing but one about which I have some personal knowledge) and make a reasonable assumption that, if legal, it would be very cheap and even when addicted a person can be functional and hold a job, and have no trouble buying all he wants on his honest living. But the time comes with so many (and I personally know a good number of them) where social function and the ability to earn a living kind of slips away, and they enter a downward spiral. Three of my closest friends growing up are dead because of it (suicides all) and along the way they did not leave their loved ones unharmed.

So on this thing and all the others you need to decide what to do. A no tolerance ban, personal use but no trade, start throwing down sanctions somewhere between functional and criminal, or just wait for the crime? I wouldn't think it heartbreaking if they'd just spin out & jump off the bridge, but along the way they have spouses being knocked around, kids being neglected, parents being robbed and so on. And unless you have another thing we libertarians dislike, that cradle to grave family monitoring certain groups of folks would love to see, nobody is likely to know these things are happening 'til they have gone on a while.

Now if you've read much of what I've posted here you know this whole theme of conflict and pitfalls keeps springing up, and I don't pretend to have the perfect solution, but IMO it'll need some consideration beyond what you've listed.

Absolutely. What I wrote wasn't meant to be an actual policy that could be readily implemented in real communities, but rather a sort of theoretical starting point in trying to find a solution that appeals to both libertarians and conservatives.

The objections you raise are quite valid and I anticipated a few of them even as I was writing my post. Since it is ultimately up to the voters to determine which drugs meet the dangerousness or addictiveness thresholds, there is a strong possibility that people will vote based not on actual science but rather on their fears and prejudices. Still, I think it would be an improvement to at least nominally recognize that government authority over drugs shouldn't be limitless, as most people seem to believe. It's kind of like how Congress treats the Constitution. They do all kinds of inappropriate things under the flimsy authority of the Interstate Commerce clause, but it's better than what we'd get if they could just legislate whatever they wanted without even the weak restraints of the Constitution.

You also bring up a good point about drugs that don't neatly fit into either of the two categories but still have the potential to cause harm to innocent people. I don't have a good answer for that problem either. All I can say is that no policy, not even total prohibition, is going to stop people from ruining their lives and hurting their families because of addiction. I do think that under the policy I described, fewer children would be killed in gang shootouts, or lose a parent to the criminal justice system because of a relatively harmless drug, or be exposed to dangerous criminal types who run the drug distribution networks in their neighborhoods. On the other hand there would be some parents who start using dangerous drugs under my more liberal policy when they might not have before, and their kids would suffer. But I can't imagine that too many more parents would start taking meth if by some chance their community decided not to prohibit its use.

So yes, my policy needs a lot of polishing. But does it seem acceptable at least as a starting point?

Thank you for your kind remarks!

Your proposal seems to me an appropriate compromise for desperate circumstances; and if we're that desperate, I would support it. But are we that desperate? I believe and hope that we are not.

Or if we are, we've got much bigger problems to tackle than whether to legalize drugs. Unfortunately, when our problems get that big, an even larger majority will grant even more authority to an even bigger government, and you and I won't be discussing such "nit-picky" questions as individual liberty vs. community restrictions.

I realize this digresses from your question, but it's what underlies my objection to permissive drug laws, and it's why I would reject your proposed compromise under any but the most extreme circumstances. A weakened people are ripe pickings for any tyrant, foreign or domestic.

Neither you nor I desire to be ruled by a tyrant. The adage power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely is recognized as an immutable law of nature. So is he who will not rule himself will be ruled by another. Though there are and always will be exceptions to these general truths, to gamble that this or that circumstance is one of those exceptions is to play with fire - and to risk burning ourselves, our fellows, and our posterity.

Some may be willing to accept that risk, but with all due respect, I'm not willing to let them. To lose that gamble would not only destroy our nation, but even worse it would cast into doubt for generations the idea that we the people are fit to govern ourselves.

What the anarcho-libertarian either forgets or willingly overlooks in his zeal for liberty is that an individual's exercise of his liberties has effects beyond himself. Your compromise, by contrast, both acknowledges that such externalities exist and attempts to mitigate them. I reject your proposal only because I consider the externalities of drug use to be beyond mitigation.

Even you acknowledge (in Section I of your proposal) that the effect on society of certain drugs cannot be sufficiently mitigated, that all compromise on such drugs may reasonably be refused by the community. You're correct to recognize the risk - to society - of permitting such drugs.

We are a community, not merely a collection of individuals. And as I've argued earlier, in joining ourselves together, we relinquish that absolute freedom which that solitary man "in the state of nature" enjoys. We have formed governments because, although they're an "evil", they're a necessary one. In consenting to form these governments, we consented to be governed by "the will of the majority restrained".

If a man wishes to ruin his life, I'll let him. Not happily, but I'll let him do it rather than suggest we outlaw the means of ruination. "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of their folly is to fill the world with fools," said one philosopher.

But the problem is not just with those who wish "to waste away their time and their money getting high in private" - as you yourself admit in Section I. Rather, there are drugs which are so powerful as to pose a threat to those who don't wish their lives affected by them. A man may be permitted to buy enough sleeping tablets to be fatal. But that doesn't mean we'll let him walking around the crowded town square with a vial of volatile nitroglycerin in his pocket.

Where you and I part ways even further is that I go a step beyond the immediate, perceived damage done by drugs. Berzerker frenzies and burglaries and superficial damage. But beneath the crime statistics is the societal rot which brings down nations and cultures.

It's a sad thing for a nation to fall because of a seductive philosophy (e.g. Marxism) or false religion (e.g. Islam). But it would be a tragedy of tragedies for our great nation to fall because we drugged our minds, fried our brains, and willingly allowed our very capacity to reason to be subverted. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if "the land of the free" used its freedom to choose the path to slavery?

A weakened people are ripe pickings for any tyrant, foreign or domestic.

True, but a people who fail to properly restrict the scope of their government are equally at risk to a monster of their own creation. If a people submit to any measure to stave off a potential tyrant, they will simply fall to another tyrant, though it may be one they are more familiar with.

...And as I've argued earlier, in joining ourselves together, we relinquish that absolute freedom which that solitary man "in the state of nature" enjoys. We have formed governments because, although they're an "evil", they're a necessary one. In consenting to form these governments, we consented to be governed by "the will of the majority restrained".

True. In joining society, we give up certain liberties like being able to exact private retribution against those who harm us, being able to take what we want at will regardless of the wishes of others, etc. I do not think we relinquish all liberty to the whims of the majority, however. We should cede to government only that much liberty which is necessary to preserve the remainder.

But the problem is not just with those who wish "to waste away their time and their money getting high in private" - as you yourself admit in Section I. Rather, there are drugs which are so powerful as to pose a threat to those who don't wish their lives affected by them. A man may be permitted to buy enough sleeping tablets to be fatal. But that doesn't mean we'll let him walking around the crowded town square with a vial of volatile nitroglycerin in his pocket.

Yes, and those drugs which do pose a threat to others are precisely the type that I believe the community should be empowered to prohibit. But I don't believe EVERY drug fits into this category. Any substance we ingest can, in some small measure, have an effect on others. But I don't think we want the majority to have unlimited power in deciding what we may and may not ingest. As a reasonable limitation, I propose that restrictions may only be imposed when the matter to be ingested poses a serious and almost certain risk of harming others.

...Where you and I part ways even further is that I go a step beyond the immediate, perceived damage done by drugs. Berzerker frenzies and burglaries and superficial damage. But beneath the crime statistics is the societal rot which brings down nations and cultures...

If we accept something other than rights protection as a legitimate role of government, particularly if we accept something as general as preventing "societal rot" or preserving "community strength", what limits remain on the power of government? Almost any activity can threaten the health and vibrancy of a community. Trash tv is corrosive to our values and to our ability to think independently. Racist speech and behavior are extremely destructive to social harmony and cohesiveness. Crass commercialism leaves us spiritually empty. Gluttony and sloth drag down our productivity and put strain on families. The rise of "infotainment" leaves us ignorant and susceptible to propaganda. Lack of financial discipline leads to dependence and desperation. I could go on and on.

Do we really want our governments to be empowered to regulate all of those things? What liberties would be safe if the community can restrict them in the name of community well-being?

We should cede to government only that much liberty which is necessary to preserve the remainder.

I couldn't agree more. Where we disagree is on how much that is.

I propose that restrictions may only be imposed when the matter to be ingested poses a serious and almost certain risk of harming others.

Here we agree once again. But where we disagree is on what constitutes a risk great enough to warrant prohibition.

If we accept something other than rights protection as a legitimate role of government, particularly if we accept something as general as preventing "societal rot" or preserving "community strength", what limits remain on the power of government?

Do you accept insuring domestic tranquility as a legitimate role of government? No, I'm not just being a smarty-pants; and this role is, obviously, limited by what follows the Preamble. But the point is that it's one of the reasons for what follows. I absolutely do, therefore accept something other than the protection of liberty as a legitimate role of government, namely, utilizing the means necessary for the protection of liberty. That may sound like a nit-picky distinction, but let me explain.

Where I think you make your mistake is in seeing only the direct and immediate threats to liberty. I think that's shortsighted. Without a government insuring domestic tranquility - and establishing justice, and providing for the common defense as well - there is no protection of liberty.

The founders weren't so foolish as to think that the way to protect liberty was to repeal all restrictions on individual behavior. But so-called "libertarians" would have us believe that's the only way to do so. The founders crafted constitutions and laws designed to maximize liberty, not only without endangering it, but also giving it strong protection. The provisions of the Constitution itself sometimes infringes on liberty. By contrast, some libertarians would in fact endanger liberty, with proposals which would undermine her very bulwarks.

Almost any activity can threaten the health and vibrancy of a community. Trash tv is corrosive to our values and to our ability to think...(etc.)

The founders of this country saw nothing wrong with banning many destructive activities. Unlike us, they were more concerned with what freedom is for than with exploiting it for their own ends. They realized that liberty is often perverted into license, which then, like Frankenstein's monster, turns and devours liberty.

Most libertarians recognize some restraints on the liberty of the individual as legitimate...laws against assault, theft, regulation against unforeseeable risk, and so on. Just out of curiosity, what restraints (if any) do you believe should be imposed on the majority's power to regulate society? IIRC earlier in the thread you mentioned fundamental liberties as being beyond the legitimate power of governments to regulate. What are those fundamental liberties? Is there a list, or perhaps a general description that would fit them all?

Perhaps more importantly, if the majority believed that a particular fundamental liberty was jeopardizing all other liberties, or the continued existence of their society, could they legitimately restrict it as well?

I think our disagreement simply boils down to a difference in how we assess risks. I believe that insufficiently restrained government authority is the greater risk, whereas you seem to believe that insufficiently restrained licentiousness is the greater risk.

That's well put. But let me describe my side a bit more fully in those terms: I believe that insufficient private virtue leads, indirectly but inevitably, to overbearing government authority.

That being my view of the problem, it's where I begin hunting for a solution. And to cut to the chase: if we want freedom, we must first be worthy of it. ("He who will not rule himself will be ruled by another.")

I realize that'll sound arrogant to some, and will be particulary galling to those petulant adolescents-in-grownup-bodies who've gotten us into this mess. But they, in refusing to restrain themselves, are the very ones who must, like children, be restrained by another. And we'll either (A) restrain them informally (via social pressure, local ordinances, etc.) or, (B) in our desperation, grant authority to government to restrain them (i.e. heavy-handed "wars" on drugs).

Which would we prefer? Because the only other option is (C) to let them run wild and destroy what the rest of us seek to preserve - in which case we'll be ruled by a tyrant not of our choosing.

Oops, I got carried away and hit [Post] without anwering your questions...

fundamental liberties as being beyond the legitimate power of governments to regulate

I don't yet have that list convincingly settled in my mind. But it seems to me the place to begin the study is with the founders - particularly with Madison, who argued that "in all cases, the will of the majority, in order to rule, must be right" (or words to that effect).

In saying it "must be right", he admitted that majority will could possibly be wrong. But in a pure democracy, that's never the case, is it? There is no right or wrong if majority rule is the supreme rule. But Madison implies an authority exists that is superior to the majority's will. And that authority would express itself in the fundamental liberties.

I find a good synopsis of such fundamental liberties in those unalienable rights listed in the Declaration: life, liberty, and the pursuit of telos (as I like to paraphrase it.)

The Bill of Rights, in my view, is not the best place to begin, because it seems less a list of fundamental liberties and more a bulwark against tyranny: It places defensive obstacles at strategic points where a tyrant would be most likely to attack - as history had taught the founders. But merely examining defensive positions can't give one a full view of the territory being defended. And Amendments IX and X remind us of that.

Perhaps more importantly, if the majority believed that a particular fundamental liberty was jeopardizing all other liberties, or the continued existence of their society, could they legitimately restrict it as well?

Such a case would indicate that our "list" of fundamental liberties was flawed, and force us to re-examine it viz. the point of conflict. (This assumes, of course, that Jefferson and others are correct in extrapolating from "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" that such fundamental rights exist, and that they're not merely a subjective set of "values".)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.