I may not like utilitarianism, but I would suggest it is wrong rather than “outdated”. Roy Hattersley wants to keep utilitarianism but scrap, as for some (unclear) reason no longer applying, the constraint Mill put on the doctrine of respect for individual freedom.
Here he is in The Guardian on Monday:
Mill’s libertarian philosophy is based on two precepts that – despite having written an admirable essay on women’s rights – he always expressed with the use of male pronouns. The first principle asserts that “all errors which (a man) is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good”. Only cranks believe that now. If it were a generally held view, we would not prohibit the use of recreational drugs or require passengers in the back seats of motor cars to wear safety belts. […]
Mill’s second precept makes a distinction between “the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others”. In short, we are free to damage ourselves but are not at liberty to behave in a way that harms other people. The distinction was easier to make in Victorian Britain than it is today – though even in 1859, when On Liberty was written, subscribers to the cult of the individual grossly underestimated how much one human is dependent on another.
Gawd! I never thought to find myself inwardly nodding at that trite radical saw about it taking cranks to start a revolution. ‘Do what I say, because I say it is good for you.’ This is the creed of slavery.
In fact, in 1859, the year of On Liberty, the following appeared in The Spectator:
The intelligent, christian slave-holder at the South is the best friend of the negro. He does not regard his bonds-men as mere chattel property, but as human beings to whom he owes duties. While the Northern Pharisee will not permit a negro to ride on the city railroads, Southern gentlemen and ladies are seen every day, side by side, in cars and coaches, with their faithful servants. Here the honest black man is not only protected by the laws and public sentiment, but he is respected by the community as truly as if his skin were white. Here there are ties of genuine friendship and affection between whites and blacks, leading to an interchange of all the comities of life. The slave nurses his master in sickness, and sheds tears of genuine sorrow at his grave. When sick himself, or overtaken by the infirmity of age, he is kindly cared for, and when he dies the whites grieve, not for the loss of so much property, but for the death of a member of the family.–This is the relation which slaves generally, and domestic servants universally, sustain to their white masters.
There is a vast deal of foolish talk about the delights of freedom and the hardships of slavery. In one sense no one, white or black, is free in this world. The master orders his slave to work in a certain field, when he perhaps would prefer to go elsewhere–this is slavery. But is the master free to do as he pleases! Not so.–He is driven by as stern a necessity to labor with his hands or confine himself to business, as the slave ever feels.
Protected by laws and public sentiment. Respected by the community. Why should self-deternination be relevant, when we have modernisation? And unlimited public sentiment.
Hattersley wrote a book about 20 years ago trying to refute Hayek’s devastating critique of that question-begging case for egalitarianism, known as “social justice”. Hattersley got himself into a right old twist in trying to understand Hayek’s debunking of such terms. What was unintentionally amusing was that Hattersley could not grasp how a man of goodwill could doubt the truth of socialism. For him, liberals are just trying to make excuses for greed, blah, blah.
The problem of course is that for socialists, freedom means power, not the lack of coercion. If X lacks the capacity to run a 4-minute mile or enjoy a luxurious standard of living, that is a lack of freedom as far as socialists are concerned. That explains why they often treat “rights” as claims to the wealth/time/energy of others rather than a negative prohibition on the iniation of force against persons and their property.
Isiah Berlin and others skewered this sort of messy socialist understanding of freedom years ago. Poor old Hattersley is still thrashing around.
Hattersley’s argument that “… subscribers to the cult of the individual grossly underestimated how much one human is dependent on another ” neatly illustrates the danger of a purely utilitarian justification of liberty. Anyone can always claim that a personal decision has at least a possible indirect effect on somebody else.
I have been watching some documentaries on political repression in Eastern Germany recently. Doing this at the same time as being exposed to the incessant collectivist propaganda from the likes of Hattersley is downright spooky. It very much looks as if Honecker and Mielke practiced in detail what Blair, Brown and their comrades are preaching.
I’m proud to be called a crank by Roy Hattersley.
The (classical) liberal view that advocates individual rights and freedom was always (and is now too) a minority view.
Opposig it are, on the one hand, the old conservatives (monarchists), and on the other – the new totalitarians – communists, socialists and fascists.
The first stressed the need for the King, nobility and the Church to “guide” (i.e. command) the unwashed masses, the second assigned this role to the “vanguard cadres” (i.e. – to themselves).
Liberty has many foes, one should not be so surprised when encountering one, they are a vast majority.
“If it were a generally held view, we would not prohibit the use of recreational drugs or require passengers in the back seats of motor cars to wear safety belts. […]”
I must have missed those particular plebicites. Unless, of course, he means a generally held view among those with whom socialises.
Guy,
Great stuff as usual. I’ve always despised people who imply insanity in those who hold differing political opinions. I don’t think Hattersley’s brand of wet state-socialism makes him a crank even if it is economically illiterate, contemptuous of human nature and inimical to the dignity of the individual.
I can’t believe I’m still awake…
The comments on CiF were actually scary: I need to do what Big Mommy tells me for my own health, because nobody is independent and the commenters depend on me.
First of all, fuck them. God didn’t make them my moral betters. Judging by their ability to apply logic, He didn’t make them my intellectual betters either. (And I routinely get outsmarted by non-computerized household appliances and Labrador Retrievers. Being dumber than drunken US plods who post to UK-based libertarian websites is one hell of a badge of shame.) If they’re so damn worthless that they need a philosopher-king to run their lives, then where the fuck do they get off trying to run ours?
Second, I saw someone fell back on that “atomized individuals because of urban society” fetid goat crap. Maybe they’re so emotionally crippled that they’re incapable of interacting with other people. I’m not and I doubt that many in the commentariat are. My neighbors bring in my newspaper when I’m away. I bring them chicken soup when they have colds. The widow up the block who can’t shovel snow mysteriously manages to have her walkway cleared after blizzards. And somehow, every time the Boy Scouts come by collecting canned food for low-income families in our community, they run out of room in the back of mom’s SUV.
And Hattersley brags about being a member of the cabinet that worried about unbelted back-seat passengers being launched through the windshield and striking pedestrians. IMHO, renting his ass to sailors for twenty bucks a throw might be a more appropriate source of pride.
What an asshat.
Recreational drugs.
I don’t take them but I support their legalisation.
So do some of my friends and acquaintances, but not many of them.
I base my argument on 3 things:
1) what people do to thermselves should not be part of the criminal law
2)the war on drugs is unwinnable; drug use will never stop
3)although some drugs damage health there are greater costs to society because they are illegal, criminals control them and users have to associate with criminals to get them, some commit crimes to get them. Remove the criminality,remove the costs associated with criminality.
But I have never succeeded in persuading anyone in favour of criminalising recreational drugs to change their mind?
Have you? And, any tips?
Jonathan,
Good point, allied to something I plan to return to in part 3.
Sunfish,
Second, I saw someone fell back on that “atomized individuals because of urban society” fetid goat crap.
Quite. Personally I feel much closer to my fellow man (& woman, milord) in urban society. Because I am. In the pre-industrial countryside, there is rather a lot of fetid goat crap in between.
Kevyn Bodman,
You might try pointing them to today’s FT for the argumentum ad terrorismus that appears to be necessary in every cause these days.
Sorry, that link should be this.
I make it a point only to read Mr Hattersley’s
pieces when he is accompanied by his dog.
Without Buster’s proof reading ministrations
tripe like the above tends to slip out.
I would deny that John Stuart Mill had a “libertarian philosphy”, but the quotations from Roy Hattersley remind me that there are a lot worse people than J.S. Mill in the world.
The point about “use of the male pronoun” is just silly 1990’s P.C. ism – not worth examining.
However the point about “depending on others” shows an important misunderstanding.
No libertarian has ever claimed that a baby should be an atomized individual out hunting down rabbits (or whatever).
Civil society – i.e. the complex web of civil (voluntary) interactions between human beings, is what libertarianism is about.
Some civil (voluntary) interactions are for money profit, but some are not – both are libertarian. Libertarianism does NOT mean “everyone must seek as much money as they can all the time”.
The conflict between socialism and liberty is NOT conflict between “cooperation” and “individualism”.
It is a conflict between civil interaction (liberty – indeed including all forms of voluntary “cooperartion”) and force and the fear of it (socialism – the jackboot slamming down on a human face forever).
For example, no one is preventing Mr Hattersley setting up a commune where everyone’s income and wealth would be the same, the libertarian position is only that no one should be forced to join this commune and that anyone who wished to leave the commune must be allowed to do so.
However, this (choosing to “opt in” with a choice to “opt out” at any time) is not acceptable to Mr Hattersley. He is called a “moderate” because he does not wish to force everyone into full material equality – but he does wish to use force and the fear of it to shove people a bit further towards this objective.
Nor is a matter of simply of income and wealth.
“seatbelts in the backs of cars” – if Mr Hattersley wishes to use a seatbelt that is his affair, but he has no right to threaten violence (i.e. fines and prison) against people if they do not use them (in the back or the front of a car).
One might argue “the state owns the roads so it has the right to lay down conditions for their use”, but that is NOT what Mr Hattersley is arguing – to him it would not matter if the road was privately owned (he is still going to order people about – and use violence against them if they refuse to obey his orders).
In short Mr Hattersley is a criminal – and the fact that he uses the state to do his dirty work (because he has not got the courage to try and beat people up himself) makes him worse, not better.
As for drug prohibition – this is a vast subsidy to organized crime.
However, this is not understood. Indeed statist regulations and taxes spread more and more (perhaps partly because, in “On Liberty” J.S. Mill argued that selling goods and services was not covered by his principle of liberty) for example the biggest boost that organized crime has got in New York City in recent years was Mayor Bloomburg’s (or Bloomberg – I can never remember how to spell the great property tax increasers name) vast increase in the cigarette tax.
Do I really have to explain why this was a big boost for organized crime?
Kevyn,
If you want to win people over on the drugs issue (rather than general libertarianism) don’t start with the value judgement in 1.) (“what people do to themselves should not be part of the criminal law”) This will separate libertarians from non-libertarians and that will be where the debate ends.
Instead of starting with an ‘in your face’ objection start by explaining to what extent you can sympathise with their view: most people have some form of good intention in advocating prohibition and you might agree with them that the objective of getting people not to consume certain drugs is desirable, even though you disagree on the means used to that end. Establishing some agreement along those lines will clarify that the debate is not between a junky or nihilist on the one hand, and a reasonable person on the other, but between reasonable people who disagree on a point of detail.
Then make the pragmatic point: banning drugs does not mean that drugs will not be consumed, it merely changes the circumstances under which they are consumed, at which point you can explain all the rest (crime problems etc.).
Give some examples: prisons are the most tightly controlled places there are and yet, drug use is widespread in them. Legalisation in some form need not mean that school kids will be able to buy Heroin at Tescos (point to positive real life experiences with regulated drug dispensation that cuts out illegal dealers: http://rantingkraut.wordpress.com/2006/06/04/legalize-it/ ).
That approach sometimes works for me –sometimes it doesn’t. Another line you could try: If someone advocates prohibition, enthusiastically agree and point out that, as a practicing Mormon, you would like to extend this prohibition to hitherto legal drugs (alcohol, coffee, tea).
That passage from the Spectator sounds a lot like passages in a useful work of intellectual history called “How the Dismal Science Got Its Name,” which points out that Carlyle coined the nickname “the dismal science” for economics largely because economists were mostly antislavery. The volume has many grim quotations from Carlyle, Dickens, and Ruskin, among others, about how humane slavery was, how offensive the antislavery radicals were, and why the suffering of one British farmer displaced to make way for a railroad was greater than that of all the slaves on a southern plantation . . . very interesting reading.
I find it pretty typical of today’s modern liberals that on that list of ‘great’ liberals Keynes was there, while Richard Cobden was nowhere to be seen.
Is Cobden a forgotten man of history?
Martin,
Cobden – repeal of the corn laws guy?
He is certainly not forgotten in the manchester/Stockport area where I live.
Paul,
Do I really have to explain why this was a big boost for organized crime?
Not on Samizdata!
Great comment by the way. The more people are made aware that Libertarianism isn’t about being the cigar-chomping capitalist of stereotype the better. Sock it to ’em in Kettering – hopefully soon to be Kettering Free State!
Kevyn,
Prostitution “the world’s oldest profession” has frequently been legislated against by bodies both spiritual and temporal since time immemorial and yet…
So, given that failure how do they expect a “War on Drugs” to work?
I must add a minor historical note here, a comment on the post’s southern slave excerpt. Slaves in the american south were indeed treated better then free blacks in the northern states, at least prior to Lincolns war. Although they were still slaves, and thus not given their due rights as people, they were indeed treated far better in many ways then northern blacks. Much of the southern animosity towards the black man originated from Washingtons political machinations in the south upon the conclusion of the war.
Hattersley, typical of Statists, watersheds individualism and human interaction as two non-intersecting circles of a Venn Diagram when they most certainly are not (and is the number one indicator that we are dealing with simple minds). Certainly people depend on other people, family, friends, co-workers. We are a social beast. That doesn’t make us Socialists. The market itself is the evidence of social interaction taking place without forceful interference.
Worse still, the wonderful “advancements” cited by Hattersley fall squarely in the category of modern laws (i.e. those that have little to do with clear and present threats to life and property) that imposes greater burden on the otherwise law abiding folk and do little against those who could give a rats ass.
I’ve heard pundits put forth that people put up with LESS freedom a few centuries ago “because it was a different time”. I personally don’t think people or “the times” really change all that much. There always have been those that put names and faces and behaviors of others as the cause for their existential fears and have gone about trying to enslave them and those who fight being so.
What we ultimately have here is a version of “human rights” pitted against “individual freedom”. Bureaucrats such as Hattersley defines their actions as helping people, even at the individual level, through endless State interference, rules, and paperwork, while others see individuals acting of their own accord, and living with the consequences, as best. As always, the root is which version requires Force and which one doesn’t.
I gave Hattersley’s article a going over(Link) soon after it came out. He is either an imbecile or a cunning, disingenuous spinmerchant.
I also wrote a piece at LibertarianUK about drug decriminalisation – it seems an FT article almost along the same lines has come out in the last day or so.
I am most certainly a crank.
The individual owes only those obligations and duties that he freely contracts. One generation cannot contract for another. Government by our Representatives may seek to impose duties and obligations upon us, but we are bound only by our willing acceptance. When we no longer accept what has been presented we are free of that obligation.
The ability to contract can onlyexist between and among free persons. Slaves, serfs, and their modern equivalents are not free to accept burdens and obligations in return for valuable consideration. a human who cannot contract is in the same position as an animal.
The limitations between the individual and the wider world are those limited by the willingness of one party to offer and another accept value for value.
Our rules of law are contractual agreements that establish procedures for disputing, disavowing, changing the terms of our contract. we may act unilaterally, but that often brings punishments that we have agreed are correct for others before we began our personal rebellion.
We are always free to change communities, nations, societies or establish our own.
TO SUNFISH:
Not all Yanks are drunk when we post. We come for the big words and big ideas. We can only stomach so much drivel among our Thought Leaders.
Kevyn:
In addition to “rantingkraut’s” good suggestions I’d offer the following.
At least where I live, marijuana use is regarded as relatvely harmless by most people (and much less harmless than most other recreational drugs). So you’re much more likely to have success arguing for a repeal of marijuana prohibition than that of other drugs. One battle at a time!
And, on the subject of prohibition, it’s useful to point out the similarities between present-day marijuana prohibition and the earlier prohibition of alcohol attempted in the U.S. and Canada. People in North America, at least, are generally aware of what a dismal failure alcohol prohibition was, and I would expect most people in the UK are, too.
Another argument I’ve had success with is the “gateway crime” argument. Marijuana prohibition has turned marijuana use into a gateway crime, causing many young people to associate with criminals — even members of criminal organizations — they otherwise would have nothing to do with. If you have a sociological bent, you can also throw in how these young people become socialized to seeing themselves on the opposte “side” from the police and the courts. This argument is particularly effective with many conservatives since they typically are already concerned about youth crime.
Finally, there is the pragmatic argument that enforcement of marijuana prohibition is expensive, and that the money spent on it could be better spent elsewhere (or not at all).
Kevyn,
The first step in convincing someone favor decriminalizing drug use is to stress to them that, while not good, they have been demonized beyond all proportion (and stress who benefits by such demonization – the bureaucrat). Point out all the negatives people associate with drugs such as herion and cocaine etc exist with alcohol as well, and that society has yet to cave because people have access to hard liquor. Yes, it may create a world less than optimal, but efforts to optimize the world by force rarely, if ever, accomplish the objective and cause secondary problems that didn’t exist before. Then segue directly into the quixotic War on Drugs which has harldy impacted consumption by a whole lot, flushed billions down the crapper, and has increased bureaucratic powers of harrassment and confiscation.
If they still let a small niggling fear of what the behavior of someone they are otherwise disinterested in MIGHT do to them, no matter how small the chance, stand in a greater position than their share of billions spent and increased bureaucratic powers across the board, then the cause is likely lost.
Similarly, I’ve had some discussions with people regarding the $50 Trillion accrual basis debt the US Government has made for itself. I’ve convinced them that it not some Right Wing scare tactic, that it comes directly from the Financial Report of the United States Government, that it is nonsensical, that it can’t possibly be supported, much less augmented, and they’ve agreed! But then they still say “Well, we’ve got to do something!”. You know then that you just can’t win when people rely on fear rather than rationality to support public policy.
B’s Freak: Took the words right out of my mouth.
… before the socialists got their hands on the healthcare industry and made people’s personal health the business of the taxpayer. There is a distinction between this artificial, state-imposed interdependence, and the natural form of family and friendship. Of course no man is an island, and harming oneself can cause distress (or actual harm, in the case of a family “breadwinner”) to those close to us, but that is still only their business, not that of the state.
I’ve had this argument many times with my own father (an old-style, pre-Thatcher Conservative), on the issue of compulsory seatbelts:
“What if I’d gone through the windscreen when you and your brother were young, and your mother had been left to bring you up herself? It isn’t only my problem.”
No, but it’s ours, not the Police’s, or Roy Hattersley’s. You wear a seatbelt because we want you to, not because the law says you must. Unless every taxpayer in the country is going to have to pay to patch you up, assuming you survive. Then it becomes, artificially, by decree of the state, everyone’s problem. As does smoking, eating, excersising, and everything else we’re harangued about from every direction by tax-funded Campaigns.
Incidentally, I’ve been reading up on this “Modernising Medical Careers” fiasco recently, since hearing about it from friends and relatives in The Service. Jeez, is this North Korea or Soviet Russia, or what? I know we’ve often called the NHS “communist” or “Stalinist”, but this is the real thing: do what you’re told – whether you’re any good at it or not – where you’re told – whether you live there (or your spouse has been allocated a job at the other end of the country) or not – or else. The only consolations are that there aren’t actually any Siberian salt mines involved and this must be the beginning of the end. Surely…
As both Mill and Hayek pointed out. If I can’t be trusted to make my own decisions, what makes you so sure you can?
Exactly. Why is that so hard for them to understand? You can be a follower of Islam and not be an Islamist, a holder of capital and not a capitalist (Mr. Hattersley himself springs to mind), so why is that one distinction not allowed?
“There is a distinction between this artificial, state-imposed interdependence, and the natural form of family and friendship. Of course no man is an island, and harming oneself can cause distress (or actual harm, in the case of a family “breadwinner”) to those close to us, but that is still only their business, not that of the state.”
That, it seems, is the one concept which collectivists simply cannot comprehend. There really are some things, inherent in Human nature, which are none of the State’s damn business. And it doesn’t matter how much they “care”.
Nanny-Statists care for Citizens in the same fashion as those slave owners cared for their slaves.
Oops. I said “Citizens”. Has that word been banned yet?
AndyJ:
I would never try to speak for all 300,000,000 of us. I was just saying that I often post while under the influence.
Not that libertarians are incapable of drivel: see Alex Jones or most politics discussions on ar15.com.
Erm.
Contrary to popular belief, drugs are neither prohibited nor banned in ANY semi-civilised country. What they are, however, are REGULATED. Which is somewhat different.
For example, morphine is freely available in almost any public and private hospital for patients suffering from otherwise uncontrollable pain. And also contrary to popular belief, they don’t necessarily get hooked on it either.
And while I am no bleeding heart liberal, nor am I entirely libertarian either. I happen to believe that regulation and enforcement of certain issues are necessary. The sale of alcohol is also regulated. As is the maximum speed of motorised vehicles on public roads.
Yes, I tend to agree that certain things are not to be subject to the State. There should be freedom of religious conscience, speech and association, for instance. However, let us face certain facts – mankind is a fallen race and definitely not capable of ‘right’ actions.
There are three reasons we may do anything; rational, moral and legal. Humans are not always rational beings, we are most definitely not consistently moral, so in the absence of both forces, the legal has to pick up the slack. And I defy any libertarian to say that in today’s climate, the rational and/or moral forces are strong in… oh, say, Europe.
Might i also point out that in Australia, quarantine is a serious matter, with serious enforcement of serious regulations and serious penalties for anyone caught breaking the rules. Would libertarians say this is none of the State’s damn business? For the Aussies’ sake, I hope you will answer NO!
Disclosure: I live in Malaysia, where freedom is even more curtailed than it is in the UK. Or almost any other Western country. And yet, and yet, I agree with their anti-drug stance. Though not so much the anti-gun stance.
Roy, Roy,Roy, deary deary me.
So much hatred and ,yes, fear, confessed in that little slander against the free.
Cranks?
“We are the masters now” changed, by the power of hope, to “We are the majority now.”
“The Free State of Kettering” Nick M.
Errrr perhaps in the 19th century (the people here voted against having a school board – as with the rest of the unwilling places it got forced on us in 1891). But not recently – indeed since about 1960 the local council (I think Kettering was better off when there was no council, just a Church Vestry, – but I am a reactionary to the core) has done many bad things that it was not even made to do.
Have a look at “Old Kettering and its Defenders” sometime.
Martin:
I do not think that Richard Cobden is forgotten (although people who like Lord Keynes are not likely to approve of Cobden) although the “Cobden Club” may be forgotten.
My favourate early 19th century liberal party man is Joseph Hume – he who put “retrenchment” into “peace, retrenchment and reform”. A true enemy of government spending it all its forms – sadly he is forgotten.
“Regulated.” I see you have developed the habit of understatement.
In the United States, marijuana is indeed “regulated.” Possession, distribution, or production are crimes under Federal law and in all 50 states. A few states have passed into law affirmative defenses of medical necessity with doctor’s prescription. However, US DEA has harassed doctors for issuing such prescriptions, made threats of criminal prosecution, and has revoked a few licenses. (In addition to state licensure, doctors need to have a license from DEA in order to handle or prescribe anything that DEA considers a controlled substance.) There are a very few people who are allowed to received MJ under Federal law for medical reasons, less than two dozen nationwide. I imagine there are rather more than two dozen people suffering from glaucoma or undergoing aggressive chemotherapy or radiation therapy and needing the supportive therapy as well.
The question of medical value of marijuana is irrelevant: Even conducting the research to show the already-shown medical merit requires permission from DEA, which has nothing to gain from allowing same and risks losing a large part of their rice bowl.
The same applies to EVERY substance which DEA or any of the fifty states considers to be a controlled substance Schedule I.[1] Now, I’m not aware of recognized medical use for P2P or d9-gamma-hydroxybutyrate or MDMA or LSD. I freely admit that. However, other people might know something I don’t. Considering that I’m a cop and not a doctor, I’m positive that there are people who know more about medicine than do I. I don’t think it’s okay for me to substitute my own judgement for the judgement of people who are actually qualified in that field.
I have no problem with an aggressively-enforced DUI/DUID law, an aggressive “drunk/doper with a gun” law, or laws against placing oneself in a position to endanger others while chemically altered. I think those are perfectly reasonable. However, when someone has a medical need amd can meet that need inside his own home without endangering others by driving or handling weapons or whatever, I personally think that trumps everything. And I don’t think that I’m able to tell him how to meet his needs as well as his own doctor. Frankly, I don’t believe that the practice of medicine is properly a police matter.
My point is, calling these drugs “regulated” is an overly-optimistic view of things. Some of these “regulated” drugs are “regulated” to the point of being unavailable even when there is a valid non-recreational medical use. And enforcement of such “regulation” is far more harmful than illicit use of the drugs themselves.
That’s in the US, where it’s still illegal to execute people for crimes other than murder. In places of more-Draconian regime, I can imagine the harm to society would be that much worse.
[1] For readers unfamiliar with US drug laws: All controlled substances are sorted into categories known as Schedules I through V. Schedule I substances are the ones which DEA says have no medical merit and a high potential for abuse: MDMA, LSD, and GHB are three of the better known. Marijuana is Sched. I under federal law, but isn’t scheduled in my state. Schedules II through V are available by physician order, although some Sched. II substances aren’t normally stored in most pharmacies. I believe that, in rare cases, Sched. V can be distributed without a prescription to a patient of legal age who completes paperwork at the pharmacy: I seem to remember that this applies to some codeine cough medicines. Drugs that are not in the schedules are not controlled substances, but may be restricted other under laws: Cox-2 pain medicines like Vioxx, for instance. Not controlled, but the Food and Drug Administration has banned most of them from the market under a different statute.
Thank you Sunfish. I wrote a comment explaining some of these matters, but it did not get through (I suspect the problem was at my end).
Erm. I admit, I dislike too strong words, so yes, I am prone sometimes to understatement. I am equally prone to hyperbole, so nobody can accuse me of being consistent.
Nevertheless, my point is that drugs are regulated, not outright banned. For example, pornography is banned in Malaysia. That is to say, under NO circumstances is it ever legal to possess any form of porn in my country.
Curse me for being a pedant. I just happen to believe there is a significant difference between “Legalise Drugs” and “Loosen the regulations on Drug Usage”.
No doubt you are correct that enforcement can be harmful. Singapore and Malaysia are just two countries where possession of narcotics is punishable by death. I don’t do drugs, so I don’t care much, but it can be a problem if you go to a nightclub and somebody slips a coupla E pills in your pocket during a raid.
But again, I’m just trying to point out that there is a qualitative (if not quantitative) difference between something that is BANNED and something that is REGULATED.
Which is part of my larger point that sometimes the law has to pick up the slack where our rational intellect or moral impulses leave off. The best thing would be for us to be as scrupulously rational and moral as possible. Where this is insufficient, well, the less desirable constraint of the law must make up the difference.
Or something like that. I’m off to sleep off my lunch [alas, must return to work].
Not in this case. That was my point: if DEA does not recognize a medical use for a drug, then it is effectively banned. Or, if the Malaysian government does not, again, banned. Or is Kuala Lampur the place to go for supportive therapy for cancer patients?
The plain wording of the law may not say “banned under ALL circumstances.” However, when the law gives severe penalties for possession without a license, and the licensing authority refuses to issue same under basically all circumstances, then I believe that the distinction is more than just pedantic. It ceases to exist entirely.
I was not aware that the moral consensus of western civilization included “thou shalt not smoke plants that smell bad and are disliked by the powers-that-be.” “Thou shalt not murder” and “Thou shalt not steal” are pretty intuitive to me. However, “Thou shalt not ingest substances which cause grown adults to watch TeleTubbies and eat Doritos” is not one of those things that St. Augustine or Martin Luther to go up a tree.
If Singapore and Malaysia think it’s worthy of killing people because they took a drug that will make then spend four hours attempting to rhyme with “orange” or listen to bad Vermont jam bands, then I know two countries that I’ll avoid. Places that order people killed for non-harmful private activities are not what I would normally call “civilized.” Okay, maybe not Saudi Arabia bad, but still.
I’ve known “libertarians” who claim that Singapore is the freest country on the planet because they have loose business restrictions. Fine, it’s an easy place to run a business without red tape and bribes, but they EXECUTE people for harm-free private activities. How very nice.
Sunfish, you raise interesting questions. Let me take a stab at them.
I believe you may agree that in a representative democracy (which category Singapore and Malaysia can be theoretically placed under), the wishes of the majority do tend to influence the govt’s policies. Well, AFAICT, the majority do not wish drug usage to become as common as the drug parks of the Netherlands.
As to your first question, I had to do some superficial searching.
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/31/763/Adeeba%20Kamarulzaman%20-%20Malaysia.pdf(Link)
(Note, I am not a Muslim. I am a Christian. But Malaysia has an official religion, and Christianity ain’t it)
http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=D422MH2R2JD08L2TMMCMJ7Q8W41QBEB0&ID=41415
(Link)
(Lousy buggers want you to pay for it, but have a look at Google’s cache)
Basically, it would seem that KL, is, indeed the place to go for supportive therapy. At least, for terminal cases, but my guess is for therapeutic cases as well. Of course, the *rest* of our health system is a nightmare, but never mind that for now. 🙂 Although, as far back as ’96, there was a reported shortage of the opiate in the country. Things may have changed since then, I wouldn’t know.
As to your second issue, we do know that drug usage can be dangerous to others around the user(s). Yes, probably the better way would be to pass law after law after law on all the possible ways in which drug use could be harmful. I am not so convinced.
Also, I do believe drug possession is not so heavily penalised as drug *smuggling* and *distribution*. But we are drifting from the central issue (which is actually a side issue wrt the blog post itself). I maintain that a BAN and a REGULATION are two different things in principle, and in practice.
Again, I do not disagree that most Asian countries have exceedingly restrictive laws. Here, for one, is an example
Again, the fact is, restrictions are not prohibition. Can we at least agree on that? Pornography, as I have mentioned before, is banned. Outright. No exceptions (well, if you have diplomatic immunity, maybe). No permits. No authorisations. Absolutely prohibited. You wanna talk about harmless private activity?
(To be sure, the Internet is pretty much unregulated. That’s more “we can’t do it” than “we won’t do it”, though. I bet if the govt could mimic the Great Firewall of China, they would)