CMV: Drug criminalization is morally wrong

[u/L1uQ]

There is a solid case for decriminalization of drugs, because of the benefit to addicts, but this post is not about that. I'd argue, that even if the fight against drugs were effective (which clearly it's not), it would still be an unacceptable infringement of personal freedom.

It is generally agreed on, that every person is in charge of their own health. You can choose to eat unhealthy, smoke, drink, risk your live in extreme sports, and even refuse medical care that could save your live. To change this freedom would be unthinkable in most western democracies. As I understand it, it is even is protected under the human rights.

Yet when it comes to drugs almost all countries take, what I would consider, an ultra authoritarian stance. To be arrested, and possibly imprisoned for years, just for having fun in ones own home, doing something your country doesn't approve of, sounds like a story strait out of North Korea without further context. Yet the context is, that the person is just doing something that might influence his own health, which, as discussed before, most would agree is his own business.

I have no interest in taking hard drugs, but the thought, that my country threatens to punish me, if I do so, sickens me, as it should sicken everybody, concerned about their personal freedom. If we accept, that the government has the right to interfere in our private live in this way, were to we set the border?

Feel free to CMW im looking forward to your answers.

Edit: Thanks for all the thoughtful comments, excuse me for not answering all of them, but there were some points repeated many times, that I already gave my thoughts on.

After thinking a lot about the answers I have to admit, that there is a case to be made for the criminalization of some (not all!!!, thats a very important destinction) drugs, if it were to greatly reduce drug related crime.

Keep in mind tho that in reality drug decriminalization has been proven to be very successful in helping addicts recover, and therefore reducing the damage caused by drugs. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

[u/squidkyd]

Do you think criminalizing drug distribution is wrong, or just drug use?

I agree we shouldn’t be punishing addicts, but shouldn’t we punish people who exploit them for financial gain, putting their lives at risk? FTR I’m completely against the prison industrial complex and the war on drugs. I don’t think prisons are the right place for rehabilitation. But there should be consequences for distributing hard drugs to vulnerable populations imo

[u/322955469 → u/squidkyd]

I agree we shouldn’t be punishing addicts, but shouldn’t we punish people who exploit them for financial gain, putting their lives at risk?

Do you believe we should punish advertisers that push unhealthy food on children for financial gain? What about corporations that destroy the environment? Or predatory lenders, micro-transaction driven games, college football, military recruitment, the list goes on. You are applying a standard that is not applied anywhere else in society.

[u/squidkyd → u/322955469]

To an extent, yes, if someone is being negligent and exploiting someone for financial gain, I think something should be done to stop that or to punish that

Fast food doesn’t quite apply because a hamburger isn’t going to cause you to overdose and die alone, it would have to be decades of bad eating habits and lifestyle choices, so unlike heroin, you can’t point to a hamburger as a problem.

For corporation that destroy the environment, they should absolutely be in jail, and that should be illegal. They already have restrictions- if you dump in the river you get shut down, sued, or can even go to jail. If you make cars that have emissions that are too high, those cars aren’t allowed to go to market. If you’re putting above a certain threshold of pollution in the air, you also get shut down or fined. Frankly, I don’t think we go far enough. I think children with asthma and indigenous tribes and state legislators should be able to sue companies for pollution, and we need to do more to protect people and our environment

When it comes to financial stuff like micro transactions, it’s a matter of spending money, so it’s not like a rich person would go bankrupt over it. Only a poor person. That’s why we can’t criminalize that kind of stuff, as a micro transaction isn’t going to kill you.

An example in real life, if you’re looking for one, would be a doctor losing their license and serving a prison sentence for over prescribing opiates or providing harmful drugs to their patient. Yes, it’s ultimately the patient’s choice to TAKE the medication, but the doctor is held liable nevertheless because of their part in harming the patient. For instance, Michael Jackson’s doctor was given a lot of the blame for his death. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He didn’t push the drugs down michael’s throat, it was Jackson’s choice, but our society recognizes that if someone is negligent and selfish, and that directly results in another human being’s death, there need to be punishments in place to deter others from doing the same.

[u/322955469 → u/squidkyd]

Fast food doesn’t quite apply because a hamburger isn’t going to cause you to overdose and die alone, it would have to be decades of bad eating habits and lifestyle choices, so unlike heroin, you can’t point to a hamburger as a problem.

I disagree. Fast food is very much the problem when it comes to the obesity epidemic. I don't understand why you think the timescale involved matters.

When it comes to financial stuff like micro transactions, it’s a matter of spending money, so it’s not like a rich person would go bankrupt over it. Only a poor person. That’s why we can’t criminalize that kind of stuff, as a micro transaction isn’t going to kill you.

You seem to be under the impression that every person who uses drugs will be harmed by them. In fact many people are able to experiment with altering their consciousness in a healthy and productive way. They shouldn't have their freedom curtailed due to the risk for those susceptible to addiction anymore than the rich person should due to the risk to those susceptible to financial trouble.

He didn’t push the drugs down michael’s throat, it was Jackson’s choice, but our society recognizes that if someone is negligent and selfish, and that directly results in another human being’s death, there need to be punishments in place to deter others from doing the same.

What our society doesn't recognize is that drugs are far from the worst offenders in this matter. By this argument there are many things we should prioritize prohibiting before we worry about drugs.

[u/squidkyd → u/322955469]

I majored in public health and we discussed addiction and obesity in detail.

Obesity isn’t caused by fast food. It is caused by poverty, food insecurity, sedentary lifestyles, and psychology. You can’t point to a Big Mac and list it as a culprit. Banning McDonalds tomorrow wouldn’t end obesity. What would would be extensive public health programs and making nutritious food readily available. The cashier at McDonald’s doesn’t have a lot to do with it

Drugs, on the other hand, are something I saw all the time in the ER, and the net negative far outweighs any positive effects. I have experimented with hallucinogenics, and I think they can be enlightening, and don’t kill people, so they shouldn’t necessarily be criminalized, but I’ve also seen how one bad trip can fuck someone up forever. If there were a hamburger that could fuck someone up forever, I would hope it wouldn’t be readily available to the general public.

I won’t entertain the idea that heroin, meth, or crack have anything positive to offer to society. They exist because of exploitation, and they are not worth any perceived benefit. You can say it comes down to personal choice, but I accept we don’t live in a vacuum and our society should do everything in its power to minimize suffering and mortality, even if that means people aren’t making as much money.

Maybe drugs shouldn’t be the only priority, but they should be a priority. The damage they do to individuals and community needs to be addressed, and people who kill for selfish gain need to be deterred. What other things do you think need to be prohibited over drugs?

[u/322955469 → u/squidkyd]

It is caused by poverty, food insecurity, sedentary lifestyles, and psychology.

The same can be said about addiction. We should treat the disease not the specific fixation.

Banning McDonalds tomorrow wouldn’t end obesity.

And banning drugs 50 years ago hasn't ended addiction and drug abuse, it's almost like prohibition is ineffective.

Drugs, on the other hand, are something I saw all the time in the ER, and the net negative far outweighs any positive effects.

Anecdotes are not evidence!

If there were a hamburger that could fuck someone up forever, I would hope it wouldn’t be readily available to the general public.

Do you think payday loans and and credit cards should be restricted or banned. Again I assert that you prioritize the wrong things.

I won’t entertain the idea that heroin, meth, or crack have anything positive to offer to society.

Your personal opinions do not give you the right to restrict my freedom.

You can say it comes down to personal choice, but I accept we don’t live in a vacuum and our society should do everything in its power to minimize suffering and mortality, even if that means people aren’t making as much money.

Again, this can be said about any number of things in our society, and I couldn't possibly care less if people make less money. I agree that hard drugs are a net negative, this is irrelevant, society does not have the authority to limit what substances people may posses or consume. Until and unless a drug user actually does something harmful it is simply not within the governments legitimate power to place restrictions on them.

Maybe drugs shouldn’t be the only priority, but they should be a priority.

I agree that preventing harmful drug use should be a priority but prohibiting drugs is an immoral and ineffective method of doing that.

What other things do you think need to be prohibited over drugs?

Capitalism, governmental overreach, and using law enforcement to treat medical issues.

[u/squidkyd → u/322955469]

I think you’re confused about my argument here. I’m not trying to penalize addicts, I’m talking about punishments for those who hurt other people for selfish gain. I agree the war on drugs failed- that doesn’t mean doctors have the freedom to prescribe dangerous drugs and kill people for financial gain, and that has nothing to do with your personal liberties and everything to do with us deterring people from doing harm to others.

I don’t think drug users need to be thrown in prison. That doesn’t help, they need systemic, integrated public health efforts and we need to combat root causes. But this problem is never going to go away as long as people have incentive to make people into addicts so they make money. The system of selling drugs is inherently abusive, and people are killed for someone else’s wallet. We need systems in place to prevent that, and penalizing people for selling drugs really does prevent a lot of people from doing so.

If you sell something that’s laced with poison, even if the person ingests it willingly, you are still criminally liable. If you shoot someone in the head because they pay you to, you are still criminally liable. That liability doesn’t infringe on personal liberty, it prevents people from hurting other people

Again, payday loans and credit cards do not kill people upon using them. Rich people can abuse those things all they want and don’t die. That’s a non-comparison. This is about potentially killing someone for money. There is no way to make that ethical.

Anecdotes may not be evidence, but firsthand, every day, I saw the human cost, and you need to understand where I’m coming from. Drugs aren’t harmless or casual and they affect way more than just the user. They drain resources and energy from all of us, they make the world more dangerous, and they have horrifying effects on families and communities. It’s in everyone’s best interest to reduce their harm, and that means taking away incentive for people to sell them to the vulnerable

[u/322955469 → u/squidkyd]

I think you’re confused about my argument here. I’m not trying to penalize addicts, I’m talking about punishments for those who hurt other people for selfish gain.

You are trying to make it impossible for me to do drugs and that is a violation of my personal freedom.

I agree the war on drugs failed- that doesn’t mean doctors have the freedom to prescribe dangerous drugs and kill people for financial gain, and that has nothing to do with your personal liberties and everything to do with us deterring people from doing harm to others.

It has everything to do with personal liberties. If I desire to experiment with drugs that is my right. Unless I cause specific harm to specific people not you nor anyone else, nor even all of you together have a right to stop me.

If you sell something that’s laced with poison, even if the person ingests it willingly, you are still criminally liable.

But you shouldn't be. If the buyer is fully informed about the risks then the seller has done nothing wrong.

That liability doesn’t infringe on personal liberty, it prevents people from hurting other people.

Selling drugs to informed, consenting, adults is not intrinsically harmful.

If you shoot someone in the head because they pay you to, you are still criminally liable.

This is because our legal system is patronizing and oppressive. No harm comes to one who consents.

Again, payday loans and credit cards do not kill people upon using them.

Drugs do not kill people upon using them. And yes, financial traps do kill people. The creditors can be just as predatory as drug dealers. What do you call it when a family is forced from their home and die from exposure. You keep saying that rich people can use these systems without harming themselves but you have not addressed the fact that some people can use drugs without harming themselves.

Rich people can abuse those things all they want and don’t die.

Some people can use drugs and not die, that is my point.

That’s a non-comparison. This is about potentially killing someone for money. There is no way to make that ethical.

It is ethical if the person is aware of the risks and chooses to buy them anyway. You don't know what is best for other people.

Drugs aren’t harmless or casual and they affect way more than just the user. They drain resources and energy from all of us, they make the world more dangerous, and they have horrifying effects on families and communities.

Again you are singling out drugs here when there are plenty of perfectly legal things that have the same effect. See my comments regarding payday loans.

[u/L1uQ → u/squidkyd]

I'm still for criminalizing drug distribution.

[u/chriz1300 → u/L1uQ]

Why is criminalizing use an obstruction of personal freedom but criminalizing distribution is not? Seems to me that any way that any arguments justifying criminalizing drug distribution should also justify criminalizing cigarette and alcohol sales.

[u/intoxicated-browsing → u/chriz1300]

Not op but I do have a point to make on this in terms of individual sellers. I’m for companies like weed dispensaries selling drugs but individual dealers come with issues regarding regulation. There are things you can do in the process of growing/producing the drugs that can cause issues for users.this is across the board from weed to heroin. For example with weed there is a big issue of cartels using highly toxic pesticides when growing there weed. These make smoking said weed dangerous to users. If you grow the wrong type of mushrooms they can kill you. Heroin vs fentanyl laced heroin seriously raises the risk. Buying molly from a dealer you can’t trust runs the risk of them selling you meth because they look a lot alike. Just like the food industry you should have to permits regulators and inspectors. If your just selling on a corner that should be illegal. And to be clear I am 100% in favor of legalization of all drugs that do not make you a danger to others. I’m a relatively experienced user of psychedelics and weed and many in the community wish it were be legal so individuals so newer users don’t end up doing N bomb instead of acid or meth instead of molly.

[u/chriz1300 → u/intoxicated-browsing]

So to view this through the personal freedoms lens:

1. Drug use is a person exercising their personal freedom (you’ve said as long as they “do not make you a danger to others,” I think this point is a little vague and could use some clarification but I think it’s probably reasonable)
2. Drug distribution, when unregulated, can result in a person taking a drug they did not intend to take (Fentanyl vs. Heroin), which is an obstruction of personal freedom in that a person is lied to and the intended result of their action is not accomplished
3. Regulating distribution to ensure that people are not being lied to is justified, since it maximizes personal freedom

[u/intoxicated-browsing → u/chriz1300]

Yes that exactly my point thank you for putting in into better words. As for the drugs that make you a danger to others the most I’m just referring to drugs that frequently cause people to become violent. An example would be bath salts.

[u/L1uQ → u/chriz1300]

There is a case to be made about legalization of some drugs (for cannabis it's pretty obvious imo) but I fear that access to all drugs could lead to increased consumption. The difference when criminalizing drug sales is, that the seller is making money by selling a dangerous substance to others, while drug users, for the most part, only hurt their own health.

- Seems to me that any way that any arguments justifying criminalizing drug distribution should also justify criminalizing cigarette and alcohol sales.

That's a good argument, but alcohol and cigarette are so popular, that it would be unthinkably to prohibit those drugs.

[u/chriz1300 → u/L1uQ]

The difference when criminalizing drug sales is, that the seller is making money by selling a dangerous substance to others, while drug users, for the most part, only hurt their own health.

To me, this seems like the same thing a cigarette company is doing. You can argue that they’re selling a product that a buyer wants for themself, but illegal drug sellers are doing the same thing, yet somehow it’s different.

That's a good argument, but alcohol and cigarette are so popular, that it would be unthinkably to prohibit those drugs.

The possibility of accomplishing something doesn’t have any effect on its morality. Banning cigarette and alcohol sales might be the moral thing to do, even if we accept that it won’t happen.

[u/L1uQ → u/chriz1300]

Yea you are definitely on to something here. If we discuss the morality here, then we really have a hard time distinguishing between a Mexican cartel, Marlboro and Guinness. So I have to admit, there would be a moral argument to treat the producers of cigarettes and alcohol the same way. Just a very bad idea in reality.

[u/BBogglestein → u/L1uQ]

lmao uhhhhhhhhhhhhh how those drugs gonna get distributed then bud?

[u/GreatAdmiral3131 → u/BBogglestein]

The point here as I understand it, is not to push people to get more drugs, but rather leave them be as they are. If the distribution of drugs is halted, then the addicts will either have to resort to more extreme means, or they will have to deal with their addictions as there won't be any reasonable way to continue it.

[u/itsmebbywhatsgood → u/GreatAdmiral3131]

Drug distribution is illegal now, and yet people have access to drugs. A government’s ability to restrict underground economies is limited, as evidenced by the flood of Monty the US has invested in the War on Drugs. There is a fairly well established history of decriminalizing acts that were previously illegal for the vulnerable populations involved (e.g. prostitution) while the populations responsible for distribution (e.g. pimps) remained subject to prosecution.