The total ownership of self - II
Published by Prakash Chandrashekhar February 16th, 2005 in LibertarianThe right to eat, drink, inhale, ingest
Continuing with the series of total ownership of self, let’s get to the second issue of discussion.
I own my body. I have a right to ingest anything into it, if I am willing to bear the consequences of the “output”.
Human beings have been ingesting substances into their body, substances that were not purely for nutrition, for quite a long time now. Prominent amongst these are substances that are used to alter a previously weakened state of body or mind and those that are used to alter otherwise “normal” states of physical and mental being.
The former are called medicines, the latter come under various headings, drugs, stimulants, intoxicants, hallucinogens, etc. the simplest of which is drugs. The line between the former and the latter has never been clear-cut in history, hence I will prefer to use the overarching term “drugs” to describe all of them.
I believe that all humans have a right to ingest any food or drug of their choice, provided they are doing it under no compulsion, and provided that they are willing to handle the consequences of their decision.
Today, the line between why a particular drug has been banned and why another is legal is something that has been passed down almost purely by convention, compounded with judicial fiat applied in some cases. In India, we have seen the usage of marijuana quite frequently despite its banning by the authorities. This ban came across because of certain laws that we had to have in line with the international community.
But the international consensus is not crystal clear either. My friend who has been to Amsterdam describes it as a free-for-all with nearly every consensual activity legalized. This has not led to it becoming any kind of a hotspot for illegal drug trafficking.
Lets look at the primary reasons that a drug ban of any kind is sought.
1.People will hurt others in a state of intoxication
2.The fabric of society will be hurt by people harming themselves.
The first objection is perhaps the only valid liberal objection to the usage of drugs because it involves the violation of other people’s rights. But then, each such violation is a crime in itself and if people are deprived of these rights without actually committing a crime, then that would be tantamount to treating everyone as guilty unless proved otherwise. Will we go to the extent of banning sharp kitchen knives because they can hurt humans? I do not know how the law presently treats people who commit crimes when under any kind of influence, but I believe that those crimes must be treated as normal crimes conducted under complete control of their volition. Drunken driving is prosecuted for precisely this reason. Risks of legalization can be studied if they are done on a case by case basis studying the effects as time goes along.
The fabric of society getting hurt – Whenever I argue for a more liberal social setup with a greater set of choices for every human being, some different version of this argument is made. But I believe that we underestimate the flexibility of societies in adjusting to various new circumstances. These may include new cultures, religions, technologies and practices. One can legitimately say that often these represent only the individual’s fears. Societies are more resilient than we given them credit for.
The legalization of some drugs that are illegal today could be one of the most humane beneficial acts that can happen today in India. Imagine the amount of spousal abuse/hooch deaths that can be reduced, if the masses had access to marijuana, instead of relying of country liquor and tobacco. Nicotine is known to be more addictive than marijuana, say studies by the british medical association. So, the law is not following the science. This can be remedied.
In the comments to the previous article, I have been called as being led by an argument’s logic alone. Though I personally believe in the totality of the rights as they have been mentioned, I hope that a step by step gradual reduction as advocated here is given greater credence.
32 Responses to “The total ownership of self - II”
- 1 Trackback on Feb 18th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
- 2 Trackback on Feb 22nd, 2005 at 9:53 am
The legalization of some drugs that are illegal today could be one of the most humane beneficial acts that can happen today in India. Imagine the amount of spousal abuse/hooch deaths that can be reduced, if the masses had access to marijuana, instead of relying of country liquor and tobacco.
Yazad, that is one amazing line of argument, I had to read it over and over again to see if you really did mean what I thought you had written.
Domestic abuse is a totally different issue from individual freedoms and you are mixing two different things up just to make point that is absurd at the best.
It is almost like arguing that people should be legally allowed to stab others on their legs than the chest because it is less lethal.
And please, do you honestly think kitchen knives and marijuana are really comparable?
I quite like the idea of “total ownership,” but honestly it is one of those things that work great in theory and never found in real life.
I am sure even socialism and communism have sounded and felt great (everyone being equal and all that crap), but in practicality it ended up being quite the opposite.
If you exist in a system, it will have its rules (liberal, conservative, cartelish) and no one will be totally free or independent because you can define the structure based only the vocabulary the system itself provides and one thing that it does not provide for is total independence or freedom.
Other than that, all this makes for real nice things to think over, but in reality we will always live in worlds with limits and rules; unless you want to live like good old Crusoe that is.
I agreee with codey - using theknives/guns argumeny, Yazad’s statement
The legalization of some weapons that are illegal today could be one of the most humane beneficial acts that can happen today in India. Imagine the amount of shooting deaths that can be reduced, if the masses had access to swords, instead of relying on guns.
But codey,
Do you really believe in the analogy? i.e. Do you think that letting people drink alcohol is the equivalent of letting people stab others in the chest? If you do, then the only way out for you is to ban drinking alcohol.
It is more humane to stab someone in the hands and legs rather than in the chest. Don’t you think that a society that allows stabbing in the chest but bans stabbing in the hands and legs is doing something wrong? So what do you think society should do?
Ravikiran why would a society allow stabbing of any kind. Stabbing of any kind is wrong and whether in the arms or chest is just a matter of degree.
When talking about alcohol nobody is talking about the simple consumption of a couple of drinks after work or even going out and getting drunk with your friends (as long as you don’t drive afterwards). They are talking about alcoholism which is a defined medical condition.
Marijuana I think is a whole different category as it is not addictive but the rest of the drugs are all highly addictive.
It wasn’t I, but Codey who made an analogy between stabbing someone in the chest and drinking alcohol.
If you think that injesting marijuana is the equivalent of stabbing someone in the hands and feet and if you want to ban marijuana on that basis, then there is no reason why alcohol should be allowed, because that is equivalent to stabbing someone in the chest.
Bottomline is, you can’t choose an analogy and shy away from its implications.
Prakash,
The problem that I see with this post and the one by Yazad on Sonagachi is that the solutions that you both desire are ex post. Therefore, the premise is that prosecution (of a crime already committed) acts as a deterrent for others. I would be interested in knowing about ex ante solutions.
Actually I think this kind of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Lets consider the arguments you make to suggest that the fact that drug addicts hurt other people, steal and destroy property is not sufficient reason to ban drugs. Essentially what you’re saying is that its ok to create conditions that make crime vastly more likely, simply because you intend to punish criminals.
The point is crime followed by punishment isn’t a zero sum game. Society loses and the victim lose even after the punishment. That is, if you are murdered for money by an addict in need of a fix, the fact that the addict may be punished is no recompense whatsoever to your family and those who love you, it does not fill the void in the productivity of society that has been left and it only increases the burden on the rest of society because punishing anyone costs money.
To make the arguments you make is therefore to completely miss the point. Its equally missing the point to suggest that to ban drugs is in the same league as banning kitchen knives. One rather fundamental difference is that drugs lead to addiction and that creates the conditions and mental states that are the cause of criminal acts. A knife on the other hand is just a tool- the presence of a knife does not make you want to stab someone. A drug addict desperate for a fix however IS willing to do almost anything to get what he wants.
Hi all,
Please check that it is I, not Yazad who has posted this article. Please direct criticisms here. I completely admit that this article barely scratches the surface of the entire argument for legalization of some drugs.
the issue is admitedly a complex one.
which is why i ask for a gradual removal of constraints, to study the effects in society, first with the most used drugs like ganja and then with others.
And again, the statement made was a rhetorical one. It is not the strongest of arguments, i admit. but nevertheless it is true.
Marijuana is a herb and there is very little chance of “polluting it”. so, it is safer than country liquor which requires an elaborate distilling apparatus.
It has a calming, as opposed to an aggravating effect on humans. so, the chances of spousal abuse diminish. If we go by the prices of cigs in india today, a factory rolled mary joint should not cost more than say, double of that.. so, for 5 bucks, a guy gets high and is not beating up his spouse.
quizman, if your reply refers to ex-ante solutions to crime prevention, then this is quite an off-topic reply. It may need a post on its own. But briefly, i think that a propserous economically and socially liberal society will give people very little incentive for crime. Even people who want to experience domination and other stuff, could do it in BDSM brothels.
Anant, most crimes committed by drug adicts are mainly because their fixes are made exorbitantly expensive by banning them. Ganja is a hardy crop that can grow almost anywhere. In a free market, its value would be pretty low, comparable to coriander. There is no reason for the addict to commit crimes solely for the sake of getting money for his fix.
So, legalisation actually reduces the chance for crime. And by freeing police resources, it increases chances for real crimes to be prosecuted.
Uh oh, sorry for the mix up, did not notice it was not Yazad, will post a response when I have more time.
Prakash,
I would hesitate to call it off-topic. The idea is that individual liberty of one does not impinge on the liberty of another. As Anant wrote, with your plan you are merely transferring the costs to society. Not an ideal libertarian solution.
It is not a question of whether a substance is bad for you or not - almost any substance in excess can be proved to be bad for you - the two questions I see when choosing which substances should be legal or not are:
1. Is the substance addictive?
2. Does even a limited consumption of the substance lead to health consequences?
Many legal substances fall under (1) - chocolate, cigarettes, coffee. However the consumption of a reasonable amount (by that I mean what a normal human being without an addictive personality would consume - maybe 5 cigarettes a day or 3 cups of coffee or a bar of chocolate) does not cause any immediate long-term health effect. You can keep up this consumption pattern for years and decades if you like and there will be little or no impact of your health. Also you will not have a constant urge to up your dosage. Though currently illegal I would put marijuana under this category and believe it should be legalized as it is not addictive and reasonable consumption does not cause any long-term health effects - in fact nobody has ever died of a marijuana overdose (I believe that there have been caffine overdose cases).
But when it comes to hard drugs - cocaine, heroin etc - it is a proven fact that
1. They are highly addictive
Now this alone is not enough to condemn them but when taken with 2 and 3 below
2. They have immediate health effects which last a long time - even a single dose an have long term consequences
3. People need to keep upping their dose to get the same high and given that it is highly addictive, it is only a matter of time before it will kill you when you take the maximum possible dose that yor body can tolerate.
CK,
Per Prakash’s argument, that would be permissible, since it is an individual’s decision to cause harm to his fully owned body.
However, there have been many studies about the long term effects of these addictions to families. The consequences to society are devastating, considering that a family is a microcosm of society. In a recent interview, Robin Williams (who was a cocaine user at one point), called it a “terribly selfish drug”. He said that the pain it caused his family was so deep that he had to get out of it.
Interesting point that you raise. The question than is suicide legal.
Now in a wholly private owned society it probably could be but in all modern economies which are in fact welfare states, technically the state has an investment in you. In the US for example - as a child you take advantage of free schooling, you use public roads and public utilities so technically you do owe the state something - somebody has to pay for all the services you consumed and it is the adult workers who pay for all those services you enjoyed as a kid. When you are an adult you are expected to pay taxes and ‘return’ some of cost of services that you consumed. Then in fact the state has a strong incentive in keeping you alive and healthy and working - hence if it determines that a particular substance is likely to affect your repayment of that debt, it has a right to make it illegal.
Now of course if you could find a non-welfare economy where all goods and services are privately owned and full paid for quid pro quo then you could not make this argement - but you will not find an economy like this (well maybe Somalia).
So the bottom line is that you can’t have it both ways - you can’t happily consume state provided services that feed, clothe, transport and educate you and then say the state has no right to dictate what you ingest, inject or inhale.
CK -
You say that the welfare state makes any “investment” in you by providing some supposedly “free” services!
First lets see whether these services are really “free”. The welfare state collects money from two primary sources:
1. From your parents through taxation and inflation
2. By borrowing from your future earnings through increased public debt
So are these services really free? THe welfare state “forcibly” takes money from you and spends it on you. Even if we make the far fetched assumption that the money it takes from you and the money it spends on you is the same, still there is no “investment”!!
And then the state has the nerve to say that it since it has made an investment in you, it now has some kind of “right” over your life!!
Sunil you are proving my point exactly. Nothing is for free and somebody does pay for it - when you are a child it is the older generation. So when you are old enough to earn you pay for the younger generation. So when I say ‘free’ I mean free for you for a particular period of time not free for society. When you come of age you are expected to return what you took.
You have a choice - if you don’t want to use any of the services - you can always live out in the woods in a cave somewhere - but in 99.99% of the cases as a kid you will end up enjoying a lot of benfits which are free for YOU.
As I said if and when we move to a ownership based fully privatized society, this rule will not hold tru. YOu will own you land and you will have paid for everything that you consume on a quid pro quo basis in whihc case you should be free to do whatever you want with your body - but till such a society comes about, society has a right to impose certain restriction on what you do because you are taking services from society and if you go down the drug path, you will not be paying back - nobody likes a free rider.
As Prakash says, the issue of drug legalization is a very complex one. Many books can and have been written on the subject. I see two comments that I can briefly respond to.
In response to Quizman’s argument that drug use negatively impacts families, it seems to me there are a lot of activities that negatively impact families but that are nevertheless properly legal within liberal society. To name just a few: excessive consumption of alcohol, adulterous affairs (and the ensuing divorce proceedings), having one parent work more than 50 hours per week. These issues are best handled within the family rather than within the criminal justice system. Why should drug usage be any different?
In response to CK’s argument I can see three responses:
1) It seems an especially strong argument for governments adopting the kind of restrictions on emigration typically found in communist or totalitarian countries. If you owe the state a debt, what right do you have to leave the country and stop paying taxes or participating in the national economy?
2) Followed consistently, it would give the government virtually unlimited power to control people’s private affairs. For instance, the government could logically ban unsafe sex practices considering all of the government money spent on AIDS research and treatment. Fatty foods could also be banned quite easily under this argument (unfortunately, this doesn’t seem as ridiculous a prospect as it did 10 years ago).
3) It is not at all clear that legalizing drugs would have a higher social cost than the status quo, where a large amount of public money goes into law enforcement and dealing with the negative consequences of outlawing drugs.
Number 3 is where the issue becomes complex. Treating citizens (state subjects, really) as bonded laborers to the state seems to me an insufficient argument in favor of outlawing drugs that carries lots of negative baggage with it (as in #1 and #2).
Mark,
I was merely clarifying that the damage caused by “willful harm to self” was not limited to the individual alone. i.e. not making a case to ban drugs. Merely stating the damage caused by it.
But I still contend that a lot of these solutions are ex post solutions. I havn’t heard a reasonable ex ante solution yet.
When you are an adult you are expected to pay taxes and ‘return’ some of cost of services that you consumed.
On top of all Mark has said, CK’s argument is that we “owe” the State in the form of taxes. So nobody should be allowed to stay unemployed or work in clerical jobs where they don’t earn enough money to pay taxes! Off to the slave labour camps, I say! :p
hi,
I believe, as mark does, that the issue of taking drugs should be handled by families and the family doctor.
About CK’s point, no one owes the state anything. The state has destroyed more value than it has ever created. It has been on the side of the repressers of technology almost forever. It has denied people their natural right to access the natural resources that can allow them to raise their standard of living. (I am a georgist libertarian. To understand my point of view, you may read Our enemy the state, by Albert J Nock.)
If I do owe something to anyone, it’s to my parents. If in the violation of an unwritten code, I take drugs instead of being a good son (this is a false dichotomy actually, people have used psychotropic drugs and not turned anti-social) then it is upto the high council of my family to decide what to do with me. And in a minarchist or anarchist society, good luck trying to go against the only support mechanism you have.
I visualise that in a legalised world, there will be
1. research into psychotropics that are not addictive
2. more careful family supervision of all matters regarding children
3. more gentle introduction of the facts of the world to children, via networks of friends, cousins, uncles and aunties.
4. not everyone will go for the hardest of drugs just like people don’t value XXX rum as the best of alcoholic drinks today.
So what happens in families where the parents are crack heads? By your theory, the children would all be crack heads too after all their parents woudn’t have any objection to kids following in their footsteps.
State as the repessers of technology? Lets wasn’t it the evil ’state’ that funded the exploration of the world, heralded the internet, the nuclear age and the space age - how would that be a repression of technology?
The fact that use of a substance may lead to a circumstance is not sufficient grounds for the government or the society to assume intellect over the individual.
This flawed assumption regarding circumstances is what makes Saudi Arabia have laws on women covering up from head to toe.
Nilu, Saudi Arabia’s laws are based on religious theology - illegalization of certain drugs is based on scientific fact (I assume you are not debating whether or not drugs are harmful) that drugs are harmful to humans physiology - comparing drug illegalization to burkha laws is just silly
Ck,
Read my comment, then read yours. If you are not wondering whether or not you are on dope, let me know.
Aah yes the old ‘are you on dope’ argument - always effective - but I think you are confusing me with Sauvik who is a frequent self-confessed user of the substance and you seem to agree with him a lot of the time which makes me think that you are unable to agree with anybody who is not on dope ;)
Drugs ‘may’ lead to circumstances…??? - I guess you missed the debate where everybody - scientists, politicians, fathers and mothers all agreed that drugs were bad for you physically and psychologically. Note marijuana is not included in this list from my perspective but you can’t seriously be arguing that heroin and cocaine ‘may’ be bad for you are you?
Ck,
You are really underestimating the creative potential of a free society to solve problems. One could imagine people paying money to drug addicts to make themselves sterile. And a hundred other possible solutions to the crack family business. b.t.w. there are societies in brazil that have regularly consumed psychotropics and have remained unharmed. And are you aware of the recent studies which have shown people who use heroin, yes heroin, responsibly?
and about the state as represser of technology, let me guide you to a very good example.
Quoting from the article, i’ve linked to.
“What pre-regulatory radio resembled most is the modern Internet. Think of all the ways you’ve heard or imagined the Web could change how we get and use information and how it could alter the structure of commerce . . . now try to imagine that happening 80 years ago!”
It is statements like the following that continue to ensure that the libertarian/Anarcho capitalist message will never be taken seriously:
Yes one could certainly imagine and one could also imagine “Cellophane flowers of yellow and green, Towering over your head.” (sorry Fab 4)
People paying drug addicts to sterilize themselves - I mean which universe do you guys live in - certainly none that I know of. Is it possible yes - anything is possible - you could spontaneously combust on while reading this message but the chances of that happening are very remote. Luckily the rest of the us live in the real world and are not holding our breaths to wait for a market mechanism that pays drug addicts to volunatrily sterilize themselves so they can continue to inject themselves with poisons.
And I’m sorry the Mises institute just got it plain wrong the pre-regulatory radio spectrum was nothing like the internet - they both were mediums of communication yes - but the technical similarity ends there. The regulation of the radio spectrum is why my garage door does not open everytime my neighbor switches channels on his TV.
Of course keeoing in line with your reasoning I’m sure the free market solution is that I hire a lawyer and estalish a contract with my neighbor, calculate the monetary value of the discomfort caused to me by my garage door opening and then pay him to purchase a new TV which uses a different frequency. Of course since I live in an apartment complex, I would then have similar agreements with my 30 other neighbors who would also have agreement with each other. Don’t you realize that at some point this senseless deeotion to a free market solution just stops making sense and practicality takes over?
Buts lets take your argument to the next level and you will find that you end up in the present situation - without having to go through your exerccise or what Mises suggests. Lets establish an intra building body made up of residents in my apartment building and lets all get together and agree that all remote controls will operate on frequency A and garage door openers on frequency B. Of course we have to get the TV and door manufactureres to agree and they do but only after charging us an exorbitant fee to customize our appliances. All is well in my building for a year and then I decide to move. Unfortunately the building I move to has the opposite frequency allocation. I get tired of all this BS and say ok lets get together and establish a body called - lets see the FCC that suggests that all radio controlled appliances work on specific frequencies. Lets not limit it to just 2 buildings lets make it so that it can make recommendations to the entire US. And so the FCC begins - however it fails miserably - lots of TVs are made in China and they don’t want to listen to no FCC so we in the US decide that the FCC has got to have some controls over what manufactureres can do …..so and so forth - if you apply your free marke system and follow my reasoning to its logical conclusion you’ll find that you end up with the present system.
free marketbody say for the fun of it we call it the FCC who says that all remote controls will operate on frequency A
It is also why the internet is heavily regulated by ICANN (private public partnership) and why they do not allow yazad to host a top level domain at www. yazad.jal.
Prakash,
I’ve written a response to a sentence in the Mises article you quoted, here
Here’s an example of the private corporations trying to prevent the government from providing a technological service to citizens.
So who’s stifling competition and technological advances now?
You have so kindly mentioned that showing people free market solutions that seem abhorrent to them now is the reason that libertarianism will never be taken seriously. But i’m sure that the idea of charging money for water would ahve seemed very weird to the people in india’s past -as would the ideas of divorce, widow re-marriage, inter-caste liasons or women becoming surgeons. neither of these seem weird to us now - Why?? Because society has evolved to accept these.
Hayekian libertarianism is perhaps the most potent accelerator of evolution that can be imagined now. It allows the presentation of solutions that were unthinkable before. And almost always -greater numbers of solutions. You may not have liked the solution i thought up in 5 seconds responding to your post - So what? Someone else can step in 15 minutes and present a better solution - Thats the power of the libertarian meta-system. And always, always, one can revert back to the status quo in a libertarian system by associating with others who also seek to follow the status quo. For eg. in the case of drugs, if you like the way that they are being handled today, you can choose to live in a town/enclave/association that bans x,y or z. Of course, you pay the full costs of your wish to control others.
About your article about the corps using the state to ban municipal wi-fi , you are just strengthening the libertarian’s point that the state will be used to do the elite’s bidding. A system of clearly defined property rights as the mises institute article mentioned would solve the problem. btw. how are cellular services operating in somalia?
“The legalization of some weapons that are illegal today could be one of the most humane beneficial acts that can happen today in India. Imagine the amount of shooting deaths that can be reduced, if the masses had access to swords, instead of relying on guns.”
This is probably the dumbest thing I have read all day! Someone please tell these idiots that the criminals already have free access to guns! The only people prevented from owning guns by government led bans on gun ownership are the law abiding citizens! An illegal Chinese pistol costs less than 20K INR in India today, while a similar legal pistol costs upwards of 200k INR!! You do the math!! Who is the net looser??!!
The question I’d like to put to these pro-government control types is that when the government was unable to put a stop to bootlegging during prohibition and is still unable to control narcotics (with any success), why is it that they are so convinced that the government will succeed in taking guns out of the hands of criminals? And if the government cannot disarm the criminals, then why take away guns from law abiding citizens?
Are they out to make life easier for criminals? Or do they suffer from the ostrich syndrome? Well, it’s high time they woke up and smelt the coffee! The criminals are NOT giving up their guns and the police is clearly incapable of being everywhere all at once… Citizens need to have a CHOICE, if they desire to protect themselves they should have the means to do so… if they wish to stick their heads in the sand and hope for the best - so be it! But it needs to be THEIR choice and not some favour bestowed upon them by a government!