Trek n' Weed

[Sci]

Would a truly free society let people do what they want and trust in their abilities to make the right choice?

Depending on what you mean by "free," I'll tentatively answer yes.

How can a person truly be free, if they willingly surrender their minds and bodies to addiction?

Because no one else is compelling them to use the drug. Freedom does not mean "absence of compulsion;" if it did, no one would ever be free because everyone has an internal compulsion to eat, drink, sleep, defecate, urinate, and flatulate. Freedom is the absence of other people using force to compel you to undertake an action; nothing more.

There is no such thing as a truly free society, because a society cannot function without rules of conduct, without law.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "freedom." But one could argue that liberty is the state wherein a person has complete freedom to undertake any action that does not violate other peoples' rights, with only such actions that violate others' rights being illegal. Ergo, you can have a society based upon the principle of liberty -- and such a society would not ban the use of any drug.

Could such a society last? I dunno. The "harm principle" -- only banning actions that violate others' rights -- has never been implemented.

 

[Lynx]

I don't think that even a "free society" can allow drug abuse due to the costs for society and the damage it causes.

What about the criminality which is caused by drug abuse?

Besides that, a good society cares for the health of the people and drugs damages people's health.

 

[THE_FETT]

Damn Lynx, you need to spark a j.

 

[Michael]

Damn Lynx, you need to spark a j.

No-one needs to. (<- again)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't think that even a "free society" can allow drug abuse due to the costs for society and the damage it causes.

Our society more or less did until a point in time far more recent than you seem to know, with far fewer "costs and damage" to society than the wholesale criminalization of them has created.

Of course, two of the most physically destructive and socially damaging drugs in the world are entirely legal for adult consumption in the U.S. and most other western societies.

And it doesn't really matter that much what "society allows" - people will use mind-altering substances whether they're legal or not. Always have and always will.

For the record, the only substance I use that's generally classified as a "recreational drug" would be caffeine.

 

[Triskelion]

I'm of the opinion that drug use is largely not practiced in the Trek universe, save for exceptions like alcohol or Chakotay's LDS palm pilot.

I think that the reason for this is that the needs, which are fulfilled by drug use, have become obsolete.

 

[Lynx]

Of course, two of the most physically destructive and socially damaging drugs in the world are entirely legal for adult consumption in the U.S. and most other western societies.

Cigarrettes and alcohol, yes. And I agree with you in your statement.

On my way home from work this evening, I saw this 13-14 year old girl with a cig in her hand and I thought "When will they ever learn".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think that the reason for this is that the needs, which are fulfilled by drug use, have become obsolete.

What are you supposing those "needs" to be? Really, the only thing that does what drugs do is drugs. They're chemicals producing a certain chemical condition in the body, and that is the foundation of what they do - confusing the motivation for seeking the psychological "experience" with the underlying biology really just muddies the waters.

Being happy and contented in one's life is not the same as being stoned. Being able to act out fantasies in the holodeck is not the same as tripping. Replacing a "crutch" with something that's considered socially "better" does not mean that the people who want to use drugs will be satisfied with that.

Basically, the premises underlying government drug policies and medical attempts to "solve the problem" are based on an insufficient grasp of what the "problem" actually is. This is why every generation or so a new kind of tranquilizer is introduced, declared on the basis of research to be "non-addictive," and then overprescribed for a few years until it's discovered that - gosh wow - people get addicted to it somehow anyway.

 

[Sci]

I don't think that even a "free society" can allow drug abuse due to the costs for society and the damage it causes.

Well, you know, we tried that same thing with alcohol in the 20s, and God knows we've been trying to eliminate drug abuse throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries. And guess what? Prohibition doesn't work. The abuse of alcohol and drugs continues no matter what. And the illegality of the substances just artificially inflates the prices, thus making rich those criminal organizations that create and smuggle and supply. If drugs were legal but regulated? The drug cartels that have been fucking over Latin America would collapse overnight, gangs and organized crime families throughout the country would suddenly be deprived of their revenue, the extra crime associated with drugs' illegalities would disappear, and the government would have a new source of tax revenue.

What about the criminality which is caused by drug abuse?

Well, a lot of that is a by-product of the fact that a given drug is illegal. Like I mentioned above, a lot of organized crime networks would collapse if drugs weren't illegal, for instance. So I would contend that legalizing drugs would reduce the associated crime rate.

And like John Stuart Mill said: If a man who is drunk beats his wife, he should be incarcerated. But he should be incarcerated because he beat his wife, not because he was drunk.

Besides that, a good society cares for the health of the people and drugs damages people's health.

Yes -- but a good society also recognizes that people have the right to be stupid and to be self-destructive.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Overeating damages people's health. Running marathons injures and damages the health of many participants. Hell, being a professional football player in America will damage your health.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If drugs were legal but regulated? The drug cartels that have been fucking over Latin America would collapse overnight

I'm not so sure about that.

gangs and organized crime families throughout the country would suddenly be deprived of their revenue, the extra crime associated with drugs' illegalities would disappear, and the government would have a new source of tax revenue.

And our streets would be even more crowded with addicts than they are now. You willing to take that risk?

 

[dougkeenan]

Because that's exactly what happened after Prohibition ended - the streets filled up with so many addicts you couldn't drive to church without rolling over a few.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And our streets would be even more crowded with addicts than they are now.

Probably not.

 

[THE_FETT]

No-one needs to. (<- again)

This entire planet needs to, especially people who use that emoticon.

On my way home from work this evening, I saw this 13-14 year old girl with a cig in her hand and I thought "When will they ever learn".

Learn what, exactly?

 

[shatastrophic]

No-one needs to. (<- again)

This entire planet needs to, especially people who use that emoticon.

Love the avatar too.

 

[T'Leisha]

Would a truly free society let people do what they want and trust in their abilities to make the right choice?

Depending on what you mean by "free," I'll tentatively answer yes.

How can a person truly be free, if they willingly surrender their minds and bodies to addiction?

Because no one else is compelling them to use the drug. Freedom does not mean "absence of compulsion;" if it did, no one would ever be free because everyone has an internal compulsion to eat, drink, sleep, defecate, urinate, and flatulate. Freedom is the absence of other people using force to compel you to undertake an action; nothing more.

There is no such thing as a truly free society, because a society cannot function without rules of conduct, without law.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "freedom." But one could argue that liberty is the state wherein a person has complete freedom to undertake any action that does not violate other peoples' rights, with only such actions that violate others' rights being illegal. Ergo, you can have a society based upon the principle of liberty -- and such a society would not ban the use of any drug.

Could such a society last? I dunno. The "harm principle" -- only banning actions that violate others' rights -- has never been implemented.

Many people feel compelled to use drugs. People who fall prey to peer pressure usually. While nobody is holding a gun to their head, and they are not being phsically forced, peer pressure certainly influences people. Although your right, in the end its the individuals decision to try drugs, no matter what is influencing them.
As it happens though, that is not what i meant. When a person tries drugs, the act itself could be construed as an act of personal freedom -We as individuals are choosing what we do and do not want to do- But in the end, addiction takes away that freedom. Have you ever heard "I want to stop drinking, but i cant, its too hard" or anything to that effect? That is what i mean. Before you know it, what started as a personal choice and an expression of freedom becomes a symbol of oppression.

 

[NiteTrek]

In the 79 original Star Trek episodes, there is only one indication that any civilized being in the galaxy in the 23rd century practices smoking in any form. Can you name it?
.

Answer to yesterday's question:

In "A Piece of the Action", a cigar humidor can be seen on Krako's desk.

Not fair, I'd hardly characterize those people as being "civilized."

 

[Sci]

Would a truly free society let people do what they want and trust in their abilities to make the right choice?

Depending on what you mean by "free," I'll tentatively answer yes.

Because no one else is compelling them to use the drug. Freedom does not mean "absence of compulsion;" if it did, no one would ever be free because everyone has an internal compulsion to eat, drink, sleep, defecate, urinate, and flatulate. Freedom is the absence of other people using force to compel you to undertake an action; nothing more.

There is no such thing as a truly free society, because a society cannot function without rules of conduct, without law.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "freedom." But one could argue that liberty is the state wherein a person has complete freedom to undertake any action that does not violate other peoples' rights, with only such actions that violate others' rights being illegal. Ergo, you can have a society based upon the principle of liberty -- and such a society would not ban the use of any drug.

Could such a society last? I dunno. The "harm principle" -- only banning actions that violate others' rights -- has never been implemented.

Many people feel compelled to use drugs. People who fall prey to peer pressure usually. While nobody is holding a gun to their head, and they are not being phsically forced, peer pressure certainly influences people. Although your right, in the end its the individuals decision to try drugs, no matter what is influencing them.
As it happens though, that is not what i meant. When a person tries drugs, the act itself could be construed as an act of personal freedom -We as individuals are choosing what we do and do not want to do- But in the end, addiction takes away that freedom. Have you ever heard "I want to stop drinking, but i cant, its too hard" or anything to that effect? That is what i mean. Before you know it, what started as a personal choice and an expression of freedom becomes a symbol of oppression.

That may be the case. But it is not the right of the state to determine for someone what substances they may imbue or whether or not they have the right to screw with their own minds.

 

[SpockWeed]

I don't think that even a "free society" can allow drug abuse due to the costs for society and the damage it causes.

What about the criminality which is caused by drug abuse?

Besides that, a good society cares for the health of the people and drugs damages people's health.

Again, I didn't mention narcotic use, and I come back to alcohol, which is used by Starfleet members and is much more harmful than Marijuana

 

[Kryton]

I doubt very much, that narcotics would be a part of any truly utopian society.

Since when is marijuana classified as a "narcotic"?