WWTBAM Bored

I just asked this of my criminal justice professor. I am reading about how many women and men are incarcerated and why, and it looks like the increases in both genders are about drug convictions. I welcome comment.

---------

I have a fundamental sort of question that may be too ignorant to raise, but it suits my big-picture approach.

Why is drug use, in and of itself, considered criminal behavior?

I can see why it would be seen as immoral or dumb, but what makes us call it criminal?

I understand why robbing someone to get money to buy drugs is illegal. I understand why assaulting someone while you are high is illegal. Those actions harm others. Any action that specifically harms others, I understand why it is criminal.

What I am wondering about is, what if we did not incarcerate people who used even way-harmful drugs, as long as they did not harm someone else but only themselves? How much would that solve the problem of prison and jail overcrowding?

I have long thought we are stupid to prosecute most marijuana offenses, given the relatively benign effects of that drug. Even people who smoke it constantly are not a threat to harm others. No one drives high on weed and kills anyone, while drunk drivers kill and injure lots of people. Mostly, stoned folks don't drive, but when they do, it is at 12 mph. I say legalize it, sell it at the ABC stores <that's how we sell alcohol in N.C.> where it can be regulated, and tax it. This approach removes the attraction of doing it because it is illegal, and gets weed in proper relation to alcohol, which is far more harmful.

But now I am wondering about imprisoning people who inject themselves with heroin, or smoke crack. In and of themselves, those behaviors are antisocial but not necessarily harmful to others. I know some folks who did occasional recreational cocaine in the 80s, and nothing came of it. I guess they are not the sort of folks who get caught, so maybe the prisons are not full of them.

Drugs are bad, mmm'kay. So don't do drugs, mmm'kay, because drugs are bad.

Not sure I really know enough to have an opinion you should weigh heavily and that doesn't stop me much.

I think that the people in prison aren't just drug users. I think their drug use has caused them to do other things than just use drugs. I think most are in prison for selling or distributing drugs.

Of course, if buying drugs for personal use was not illegal, then selling them would not be either.

I think it might be a 'line in the sand' kinda thing. If we decide that walking around high on heroin is not criminal, it is one step closer to having a society that is mind altered. Like we are saying that altering your mind is an okay thing to do. We would be saying that it is 'normal'. I think that is a society we do not want.

Drug use also does not just affect the user - the entire family is affected. The company is affected. People have their attention divided between their responsibilities - to their family, to their job, to their society and so on. The drug becomes the most important thing. It becomes life. Do we want a society where we turn a blinds eye to that future for it's people?

Maybe it is a bit like assault weapons - they are not that much different than a shotgun and yet we have to draw a line somewhere - deciding that we don't think they are safe for our masses to own, for fear that they will be misused by too many.

I am just talking out loud here, so once I get challenged on what I said, I very well could move to another thought - I just liked exploring the question.

First, you must accept that somewhere in a society a line has to be drawn between legal and illegal based on moral grounds. If you don't buy that premise then there can be no discussion. Once that is a premise we can begin.

You mentioned (in principal in not exactly) if someone does something that doesn't harm someone else it shouldn't be illegal. Harm may not be direct but indirect, and may not be to an individual but to society as a whole. So do you consider that?

And what is 'harm'? Physical, financial, emotional?

Should suicide be legal?

One person doing drugs in his house probably doesn't hurt someone. But 100,000 people doing drugs in their houses probably harms society as a whole.

Having sex with a dead animal (even if that animal is another human) where the animal died of natural causes doesn't harm anyone, does it? Should it be legal?

Some people don't know or are not willing to live within the mores of a society and so to protect itself a society makes certain activities illegal.

Now back to drugs specifically..

I personallfy feel smoking weed should not be illegal if done in one's own home and the odor (and associated high inducing chemicals) do not pass outside the home to others (such as apartment neighbors) and the same public intoxication rules apply meaning you can't walk around publically stoned.

Crack, heroin, and others should be illeagal as their use harms society, in a macro sense, not necessarily in a micro sense.

I realize that this nation's attempt at prohibition drew a line that didn't work. Everyone has their own idea of where that line is.

Here is a question. Should stealing be legal if it helps, rather than hurts someone?

BackInTex wrote:Crack, heroin, and others should be illeagal as their use harms society, in a macro sense, not necessarily in a micro sense.

I agree with you, but also wonder where the line gets drawn. There are those who suggest that "immersive reality" games (like World of Warcraft) are harmful to society because people get involved in playing it to the exclusion of the real world (similar to any other addictive behavior). Some have suggested that as technology advances to the point where we have Star Trek-like holodecks, many people will decide that virtual reality is better than the real thing. That would also be harmful to society in a macro sense. Do we start outlawing those things?

I realize that this nation's attempt at prohibition drew a line that didn't work. Everyone has their own idea of where that line is.

BackInTex wrote:Here is a question. Should stealing be legal if it helps, rather than hurts someone?

Stealing always hurts someone. What has to be determined is the amount of harm done to the amount of good done. To cite the classic example, if a starving person steals food from a supermarket, is the harm done to the corporation as bad as the good done for the person?

Some people do crack. Others post on message boards. Which one hurts productivity the more?

BackInTex wrote:Should suicide be legal?

Hard to punish the offenders.

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Should suicide be legal?

Hard to punish the offenders.

Not entirely. Your life insurance would usually be void, even if you were dying of a terminal disease.

Bob Juch wrote:

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Should suicide be legal?

Hard to punish the offenders.

Not entirely. Your life insurance would usually be void, even if you were dying of a terminal disease.

From what I read (wish I remembered where), that's not really true - there's a certain period (2 years?) and then it's as valid a cause of death as any other.

Not the most definitive source, but I found it quickly:
http://personalinsure.about.com/od/faq1/f/lifefaq5.htm

Maybe this is where I am going:

In Amsterdam, hash and suchlike is legal, sold in the bars with alcohol, and ingested there (and at home, I believe). Prostitution is legal. The cops watch out for the sex workers.

I am wondering if their prisons are overcrowded, or if their society is in the toilet because they have made some stuff legal that we haven't.

I get that some drug use harms more than the immediate user. I just don't know at what point it is the group's job to tell the individual what the group disapproves of to the point that you must be punished. There is natural punishment coming anyway, if you abuse a drug.

Thanks for the lines in the sand. I see that different groups draw lines in different places, and that's what I was asking about. This particular group (nation) tends to draw lines very loosely on some things and surprisingly tight on others.

earendel wrote:
Stealing always hurts someone. What has to be determined is the amount of harm done to the amount of good done. To cite the classic example, if a starving person steals food from a supermarket, is the harm done to the corporation as bad as the good done for the person?

I was thinking another way. What is you stole a friend's gun that you knew was on the verge of suidcide?

BackInTex wrote:

earendel wrote:
Stealing always hurts someone. What has to be determined is the amount of harm done to the amount of good done. To cite the classic example, if a starving person steals food from a supermarket, is the harm done to the corporation as bad as the good done for the person?

I was thinking another way. What is you stole a friend's gun that you knew was on the verge of suidcide?

You will have taken away that person's autonomy.

Except they will do it some other way, if they mean to do it.

Without looking at any other responses, or checking any facts......

There are a variety of means by which stability and control is established in any society.

Ah, the devil with the long and discursive stuff.

The final answer:

Epiphenomenon of the same social movement with produced Prohibition, with the additional data supporting including the fact that chemistry began producing specific new products with great biologic power at the end of the nineteenth century.

And as I think, a lot of that chemistry came from Europe esp Germany.

Heroin was a Bayer brand name.