Matt and Mark Kleiman are right that we shouldn't shut down Narcan, a nasal spray that can counteract the effects of a heroin overdose. The Feds want to control access to it, apparently on the grounds that this will make it easier to be a heroin addict. As the good professor says:
Why not just go all the way and poison the heroin supply? If withholding Narcan in order to generate more overdoses in order to scare addicts into quitting were proposed as an experiment, it could never get past human-subjects review. But since it's a failure to act rather than an action, there's no rule to require that it be even vaguely rational.
I completely agree, of course, since I favor drug legalization. But isn't this the logic of keeping drugs illegal, a policy Mark favors? We make it dangerous and illegal and costly to be a heroin addict, in order to deter other people from becoming heroin addicts; as a result of this, some people undoubtedly die.
I imagine that poisoning the heroin supply would, in fact, be a pretty effective way to deter future heroin addicts. That doesn't make it good policy, even if the net effect is many saved lives. But our current drug policy seems to me to ground itself, though more obliquely, of the same crude utilitarian calculus.
Gosh, this is an issue whose time seems to have come!! I heard the NPR segment a couple of weeks ago, then all was quiet and now I see it in three blogs in one weekend.
I commented in the WashMonthly about this. The WH Drug Policy spokesperson Dr Madras shows that she either does not understand the heroin-Naloxone relationship or--would ya think?--knows herself that their Naloxone policy is punitive and will result in unnecessary deaths by OD. She implied in the NPR interview (and is quoted in these blogs) saying that putting Naloxone in the hands of addicts would enable an addict to have an OD, survive it with an Naloxone and never go to the ER.
She's full of shit!!
Here's why: Heroin is a long-acting opiate. It's effects last for hours Naloxone is a short-acting antagonist. It comes and goes in minutes.
When given as an aerosol, it's effects are even shorter since there is no 'reservoir' of Naloxone in the body. When we treat an OD in the hospital, it's common to have to give repeated injections of Naloxone or to hang a continuous infusion.
These Repubs--our own version of 'the Party of God'. Either unbelievably stupid, unspeakably evil or both.
It's not utilitarian calculas to fight to good fight and insist that you should not do what is wrong and you should not permit it to be done legally in the name of being pragmatic.
You're projecting your standards on to others.
Within a 1-2 generations your policy of legal drug use would cause serious problems with this country.
The stigma would against using those drugs would last only as long as the lives of those who remember the ban -- if even that long.
dangerous and costly is the result, whether drug use is banned or legal, and I believe it is far from clear which is more detrimental. China in the late 1800's showed what legal drug use could do, we are showing what illegal drug use can do. If we legalize drugs we will be as unhappy with the results as we are now.
Megan, I think this line of thought is uncomfortable to Kleiman, but it's hardly as if he can say nothing. After all, he can claim that while the threat of overdoses is an attempt to use death to scare people into not using heroin, illegality is an attempt to price people out of using heroin. Offhand, I think pricing people out of heroin use is more likely to work (and I think I'm pro-legalization).
Sam: if what you're saying was true, people would have a stigma against marijuana, since it's illegal, and would be cool with huffing paint fumes, since that's not. But in fact, if you stigmatize marijuana users, you have a stick really far up your ass, whereas people who get high off of paint are rightly regarded as walking turds.
Within a 1-2 generations your policy of legal drug use would cause serious problems with this country.
Um, right. As opposed to the nirvana like world we live in wherein narcotics prohibition prevents the existence of drug-related problems.
Huffing paint fumes is illegal. For example, in NY:
Um, right. As opposed to the nirvana like world we live in wherein narcotics prohibition prevents the existence of drug-related problems.
I notice you didn't go so far as to actually refuse the claim. IMO, it's correct, and Blaine summarized it suitably:
dangerous and costly is the result, whether drug use is banned or legal, and I believe it is far from clear which is more detrimental. China in the late 1800's showed what legal drug use could do, we are showing what illegal drug use can do. If we legalize drugs we will be as unhappy with the results as we are now.
In fact, I would be happy to see this country get over the idea that marijuana possession and use is a potential felony offense (with associated rights recovations), when anyone with a head on their shoulders should be able to see it as being more narrowly a public health problem (those who need it cannot legally get it, those who don't need it use it anyway, often to excess) with misdemeanor liability under most circumstances.
But the concept that large-scale drug legalization solves the problems of illegality is only correct to the extent that it does not create significant new problems that are at least equally detrimental. Which, I think, has not been conclusively demonstrated by those countries which have tried it.
I
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons.
In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting.
It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.
II
Every voluntary act of a man's life is either virtuous or vicious. That is to say, it is either in accordance, or in conflict, with those natural laws of matter and mind, on which his physical, mental, and emotional health and well-being depend. In other words, every act of his life tends, on the whole, either to his happiness, or to his unhappiness. No single act in his whole existence is indifferent.
Furthermore, each human being differs in his physical, mental, and emotional constitution, and also in the circumstances by which he is surrounded, from every other human being. Many acts, therefore, that are virtuous, and tend to happiness, in the case of one person, are vicious, and tend to unhappiness, in the case of another person.
Many acts, also, that are virtuous, and tend to happiness, in the case of one man, at one time, and under one set of circumstances, are vicious, and tend to unhappiness, in the case of the same man, at another time, and under other circumstances.
by Lysander Spooner
1875
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6181/vices.html
He goes through to 22 points in his essay: "A Vindication of Moral Liberty"
MEH, So you are suggesting society is not harmed by condoning and making drug use legal? That the plethora of grey area issues relating to alcohol use/abuse will not be dramatically magnified as it now becomes your legal right to do use crack, etc.?
I don't the point of the pro-legal people. Theys seem to be arguing that we shouldn't fight a war because it is causing people to get hurt. Better let the invaders win and we can just get on with ourlives.
I do believe that the issue of pandoras box applied in this case is a real one with a host of repercussions.
with the transparency, greater, of non-prohibition, we would better know the 'invaders' in this sentiment:
Better let the invaders win and we can just get on with our lives.
Also, with this: "So you are suggesting society is not harmed by condoning and making drug use legal?"
the etheral 'society' need not condone, nor support, any that is not 'illegal'. People, not 'societies', are the actors in any construct of self-regulation.
quotes:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson
I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way.
Thomas Jefferson
It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another.
So if I cut back on my safety checks so I can save money, and hope like hell that nothing bad happens, then I'm not guilty of a crime when someone gets killed?
West,
negligence, is a Tort.
"In general terms, negligence is "the failure to use ordinary care" through either an act or omission. That is, negligence occurs when:
somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances; or
somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances.
Negligence is often claimed in personal injury lawsuits. For example, a personal injury lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident case or premises liability action is frequently based on the theory that the defendant was negligent. Please note that negligence law varies between jurisdictions, sometimes significantly, and you should check with a local legal professional if you wish to know the specific negligence laws of your jurisdiction.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/negligence.html
Also, Ignorance is no shield..
The poison technique is already used. They put large doses of acetaminophen in drugs like Vicadin apparently for no good reason other than to shut down the livers of addicts. When I was prescribed Vicadin after fracturing several of my ribs, my doctor admitted that if you need Vicadin for pain, it is unlikely the Tylenol is doing anything for you other than ensuring you don't try to get high.
It's nice we give the livers of everyone taking these medications a beating just to ensure we kill off the addicts.
The policy of deliberatly poisoning intoxicants goes back to the repeal of Prohibition. What do you think 'denatured' alcohol is?
Didn't the government do this once upon a time? I remember the name Paraquat?
It was before I was born, so maybe it was a myth.
Although naloxone distribution shouldn't really need regulating, it's very unlikely to improve things if it's not. Its duration of action is short, much shorter than the drugs it's designed to reverse the action of. It's not a bad drug for paramedics to use, because they are taking someone to a hospital where continuous infusions can be administered, but if used on the street it would likely produce little to no effect - if you're a junkie who's surrounded by other junkies, how likely are they to pay attention to the exact moment you stop breathing? After all, it does no good after your heart stops beating, because it won't circulate.
Doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal, but it won't make a significant difference either way in the hands of hardcore addicts, who are likely to forget to re-dose it when it wears off (but the heroin is still going strong).
So you are suggesting society is not harmed by condoning and making drug use legal?
The test should not be whether society is harmed; it should be whether a person [other than the actor] is harmed. And the harm should be reasonably direct. Also, the behavior with exceptionally high risk of harm to third parties (drunk driving, taking PCP...) appears to be fair game for the law.
The X-Games and, better yet, 16 year-old morons who think they're Tony Hawk leads to lots of injuries, upsets nice suburban mothers and drains our healthcare system when they end up in a hospital. Should we ban the X-Games?
If not, why not?
Divorce has many harms... etc, etc. Should we ban that? Oh wait, there's people who want to... never mind.
sam, making something legal and condoning it are not equivalent.
You need to learn the difference between saying that something is wrong and saying that it should be illegal, that is to say that it should be punished with the violence of the state.
I think it's wrong to cheat on your spouse. The state should not put a bullet in your head if you do so.
You may think it's wrong to smoke pot, drop acid, or shoot up heroin. To argue that the state should murder people (which it does, daily) based on that moral judgment is repulsive.