Opinions - Ethics and drug policy

[Alfa]

A new entry has been added to Drugs Archive

Description: During the 20th century, support for a deontological approach to illicit drugs grew steadily. As a deontological framework was invoked, how
goals were accomplished was considered more important than what was achieved. Accordingly, global drug prohibition was considered right even
though illicit drug production and consumption, deaths, disease, crime and official corruption increased steadily. In the last decades of the
20th century, consequentialist approaches to drugs began to receive increasing support. Drug policy was now considered morally right if it produced predominantly beneficial consequences. The advent of an HIV pandemic in the last quarter of the 20th century changed the nature of injecting drug use irrevocably, just as injecting drug use changed the
course of the HIV epidemic. HIV spread among injecting drug users led to increased support for ‘harm reduction’. The scientific debate about
harm reduction, which is now over, has essentially been between consequentialists and their deontological critics. The paramount aim of harm
reduction is to reduce the health, social and economic costs of drug use.
Reducing drug consumption can be a means to this end. Harm reduction strategies have been recognized as being effective, safe and cost-
effective for at least 15 years. The paramount need now is to overcome the conventional reliance on drug law enforcement, the major barrier to implementing harm reduction strategies in time and on sufficient scale.
Because of the limited benefits, high costs and severe unintended negative consequences of global drug prohibition, increasing consideration is being given to possible alternative arrangements for drugs.

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit Ethics and drug policy
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

[robertone]

This post resembles the author's opinion and doesn't neccessarely has to be correct or true!

Both ethics and drug policies are widely abused tools and liable to changes due to its political potential. Drug use wasn't an issue in ancient societies. Drug abuse in historical societies only became an issue when the direct surrounding decided that the use of drugs became a problem for the user himself and/or his surroundings. If the 'abuser' wouldn't listen to the ones who try to correct his behavior, he was, depending on the society where the 'abuser' lived, 'corrected' on a hars manner or just ignored. In modern society, however, drug use became more and more an issue of state and law. Because the wide spread problematic alcohol consumption of the late 19th and early 20th century, drug [mis]use in general was (and is) labeled as ethical unwanted.

In the sixties of the 20th century a liberation of thinking and tolerance started to grow between younger people, which named themselfs 'hippies'. They had the opinion that the society as community should be more tolerant. They, the hippies, also protested non-violently, in imitation of Mahatma Ghandi, against war acts and injustice -- special the vietnam and the segregationist laws of South Africa -- and showed liabilitic resistance when forces tried to break their protest. In the same period drug laws became more developed and covering (bringing more substances under its restriction), while the hippies promoted the use of drugs to expand one's sconsciousness. Eventually, this led to a more widely public term that Marijuana wasn't as dangerous as propagandated by the Government. Because older farmers knew and used Marijuana before it became prohibited, this liberal conception was easily accepted by the public.

In the seventies of the 20th century some countries developed more liberal drug laws and made distinct difference between 'hard' and 'soft' drugs by law. While the public [once again] accepted drugs as part of live and saw its use less dangerous then before, drugs became once more an instrument of politic and military power -- like during the Opium Wars in the 19th century and which caused the founding of the first drug law and the International Opium Convention at The Hague in 1912. In some countries legalisation of drugs even came upon the political agenda. However, due the influence of The Hague Convention this legalisation never became reality.

During the eighties the situation became contradictional because Governments tried to convince the population that drugs are a threat to the society, while the people didn't accept the Governmental arguments. However, like always with propaganda, the people started to believe what was told and the drug laws became more hars and covering. Remarkably it took more then ten years before the anti drug propaganda became effective.

Since the mid seventies the Govenrments became aware of two facts that they will not discuss publicly. The first that due the growing economy and population drugs became [once again] a serious economical tool. The second that people that use drugs are tend to become more liberal thinking and civilly disobidient. This awareness also explain the controdictional behavior of [some] Governments. Publicly Governments declare that drugs are so bad that these have to be eradicated, while behind the scenes drugs are used to favor friended nations and to circumvent administration and legislation finance problems. See for example the Irangate and the Contra affair.

Presently the War on Drugs became so important for the present governing members that they use it as an tool to stay in power and even extend it to compounds which a sane person wouldn't even consider a drug. Mahatma Ghandi once said that "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it" and in this perspective it's very important that all of you speak out against the present prohibition.

[Heretic.Ape.]

^ I forgot that Gandhi quote. Thanks Rob, that gives me a little boost.