




| Time for something completely different |
|
|
| Written by Steve Bettison | |
| Sunday, 10 August 2008 | |
|
Comments (6)
![]()
...
written by Arthur, August 10, 2008
You may well be right that we would be advised to decriminalise drugs, but please stop peddling the lie that it is the legislation that criminalises people. It is not. People are perfectly aware that drug taking and dealing are illegal yet make a conscious decision to do it anyway. Right or wrong, they criminalise themselves.
Would anyone seriously argue that a murderer was criminalised by the legislation rather than by his or her own actions? There is, indeed, a logical argument for decriminalising drugs but your argument about criminality denies the existence of free will, and I would have thought that any ASI supporter would have thought free will rather significant in the functioning of society.
...
written by Dave, August 10, 2008
It is not the drugs need to be targeted but the profits. Nationalise drugs, undercut the market. This will remove all profit from the illegal supply. Remove pushers of the streets as they will have no financial rewards. Having no pushers motivated by money will over time reduce those taking up drugs.
The ASI is stuffed full of experts on how Government interference can kill a market. This is the ideal market for that interference.
...
written by Toby, August 16, 2008
Arthur wrote:
>It is not. People are perfectly aware that drug taking and dealing are illegal yet make a conscious decision to do it >anyway. Right or wrong, they criminalise themselves. >Would anyone seriously argue that a murderer was criminalised by the legislation rather than by his or her own >actions? I could be wrong, but I think you're making a mistake here. I believe the argument regard drug use is that it is wrong to have criminalised it. To be sure, people choose to take drugs, and by doing so they fall foul of the law. The point is, however, that the law is wrong to do so - it criminalises an act which is not criminal. Imagine there was a law which criminalised buying oak tables. I knowingly buy an oak table. I'm now a criminal. Except I'm not, it's just the law is crazy. In short, drug use is ethically fine, but legally not. Your example of murder is not comparable because murder really is a crime, both ethically and in law. All contracts must be voluntary and well-informed, and being murdered is non-voluntary. (In that way of looking at things, drug use is in and of itself harmless, so there isn't even a contract to consider; it's just a person doing what they want to do.)
...
written by Toby, August 16, 2008
Dave wrote:
> The ASI is stuffed full of experts on how Government interference can kill a market. This is the ideal market for that > interference. Why? who are you to say that other people should not take drugs?
... written by Arthur, August 17, 2008
Toby,
I understand your point that it may have been wrong to criminalise drug use but your understanding of criminality is deeply worrying. You say that the law "criminalises an act which is not criminal". This is wrong, plain wrong. An act is only criminal because a legal jurisdiction and process make it criminal. An act is not intrinsically criminal outside the law. It is the law that defines criminality. By definition, your analogy with buying oak tables is a nonsense. If there was a law to say that buying an oak table was illegal it would, therefore, be a crime to do so, no matter how ridiculous that law would be. The problem with your argument is that it undermines the concept of a law common to all. You seem to think that you, as an individual, have the power to say what is and is not a crime. That way lies anarchy as we all chose what is a crime according to our own standards. Do you really believe that under this system the murderer will not simply say that murder is not a crime according to his rule book? The benefits of a law common to all are dependent on individuals accepting the decisions of the system even though they might disagree with them. There are, indeed, good arguments for drugs to be decriminalised but as long as the law says that it is illegal and, therefore, a crime, then it is criminal. And as long as the individual makes their own decision as to whether they take drugs or not, they are criminalised by their own actions, not by the law itself. Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
Keep up-to-date with the latest events, reports and information from the Adam Smith Institute by joining our fortnightly email list. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any point. Just enter your email address here:
In the UK, the NHS caters for the needs of the most extreme of drug users through replacement therapies, providing patients with alternatives to their drug of choice. This helps patients stabilise they're often erratic lifestyle.There have been suggestions that to wipe out the trade completely we would require provisions to supply patients with a regulated dose of the actual drug itself.
Having looked into this area, those that use drugs have an altogether different lifestyle which cannot be replicated and to tackle drug usage we would need to look at the wider circumstances of these individuals.
There are also many grey areas of this £40bn Underground. Although we may be able to define most of the areas we certainly are not able to enforce the rule of law under such circumstances.
From prostitution to counterfeit goods, the issues surrounding these businesses have to be looked at on a macro as well asa micro scale, Law enforcement should be part of a wider array options available in tackling and solving our issues.- After all, lest we forget,- we are all human.