Opinions - Using drugs is a human right. Why isn't this emphasized more by drug activists?

[Expat98]

I've been meaning to bring this up for a while. I do not understand why the "human rights" angle is not focused on more by drug policy reform advocates. They instead place their focus on pragmatic issues, such as economics, harm reduction, crime reduction, race politics, and the need to allow medical research with controlled substances.

All of those issues provide important reasons for ending the Drug War, but the real crux of the issue and the strongest argument against prohibition is the moral argument that it is a human rights violation to prohibit people from using drugs. Yes, there are many crimes and problems associated with people who abuse drugs. You want to punish people for those crimes and problems? Ok that's fine - they should be punished. But what possible argument can there be for punishing drug use in and of itself? There is none, unless you resort to an authoritarian interpretation of religion or something.

***

Crime expert: Using drugs a human right

By Cormac O’Keeffe
June 16, 2008

DRUGS should be legalised because there is a “human right” to use them, according to a new book by an Irish criminal law expert.

Paul O’Mahony also said the war on drugs had “failed catastrophically” in Ireland, and across the world.

The Trinity College psychologist and criminologist said it was a “scandal” that enormous resources were being used to enforce prohibition. He said this policy had not only failed to lower drug use, but may have contributed to its increase.

In his book, The Irish War on Drugs: The Seductive Folly of Prohibition, Mr O’Mahony said the campaign for abolition needed a clear, rallying idea, which would cut through complex arguments.

“What is required to achieve a tipping point, a revolution in thinking, is a bold, inspirational idea to which people can subscribe as a matter of self-evident principle.

“Only the concept of a human right to use drugs can fulfill this role of providing a meaningful, inspiring and unifying idea which can guide the transition to a fully non-prohibitionist system.”

He said there was a human right to use drugs, so long as it did not negatively impact on the rights of others.

He said such a right was consistent with legal and constitutional concepts of individual freedom and human rights.

“Recognition of the right to use drugs is warranted in moral and legal terms and is in accord with the scientific understanding of human nature.” He said the appetite for mood-altering substances and new experiences was “normal” from a physical, psychological and social point of view.

Mr O’Mahony said prohibition had failed to acknowledge the differences between less and more dangerous illegal drugs and the fundamental similarities between illegal drugs and legal drugs, such as alcohol and prescribed drugs.

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer...129-qqqx=1.asp

[vinylmesh]

I must give that book a read.

[Coconut]

While I agree profoundly, most people seem to believe that using drugs is not a human right and that governments and laws are omnipotent - that you must obey the rules no matter how illogical, irrational and scientifically deficient they are. The sheep know no better. They have lived their whole lives being indoctrinated with rubbish about how the state knows best and that questioning this is dangerous. They refuse to take the first step towards transcending the border between government-moulded reality and true reality because they are comfortable. They are convinced they are free and that authoritarian surveillance societies are fine if you have nothing to hide.

SWIM's mother is a perfect example of this. Sickening. Truly sickening.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Good points here, thanks for contributing to this thread.
	Sadly very true.

[Metomni]

SWIM sees it as more of a priveledge, not a "right". Rights are freedoms granted to us with the goal of improving the quality of life. Priveledges are acts granted to us by anything, whether that be another person, our government, or in this case, the earth, with the goal of endowing knowledge or unique experiences unto us.

To say it's a right infers that everyone should be doing drugs, and this is simply not true. Should severely mentally unstable people be dosing on LSD? Saying it's a right also loosens one of the major goals of this site, harm reduction. If the view that doing drugs is a right was put into the mainstream environment, not only would there be less care in what people ingest, but there would be less care in the combinations of drugs that people use and there would be a lessened view on the damage that certain drugs can induce.

Reputation Comments on this post:

couldn't have said better

[cra$h]

hate to be a negitive nancy, but when it comes to human rights, stopping a genocide is a little more importaint than legalizing weed. we can still get the drugs, but you can't get a life off the black market. and drugs are to be respected, and as mentioned, not everyone is suitable for psychoactive substances. that's how horror stories happen, and that's how the drugs get blamed, and that's why they're illegal. It's a human right to do what ever we want to ourselves, but that can be extremely reckless, and depresses those who have went out of their way to make sure you don't fuck up. swim likes the idea of drugs being a human right, but some will take it to far, and ruin it for everyone. again.

[ShawnD]

Originally Posted by Metomni

SWIM sees it as more of a privilege, not a "right".

The problem is that restricting a drug basically makes the person restricting it either a liar or an idiot because they can't even define what they are restricting.

Let's look at cocaine as the example. Primary brain effect is a sharp increase in dopamine. So then the law should have a general bias against dopamine because we've established that dopamine is bad, true? Well now we need to ban alcohol, caffeine, sex, being young, chocolate, aerobic exercise, and video games. Ok so dopamine is not bad. Maybe we can ban cocaine because it's from a plant. That makes food illegal, so we can't do that either. Maybe we can ban it because it's a refined drug from a plant! Well then ephedrine, aspirin, codeine, morphine, and oxycodone should be illegal.

What differentiates an illegal drug from a legal drug? Why is the coca plant illegal, but the cocoa growing 10 feet away is not illegal? The rules are completely arbitrary. Drugs are not made illegal based on safety, where a plant natively grows, effects on the brain, or any other metric you can name. How can somebody say that certain drugs are a privilege when it can't even be established what an illegal drug is?

Should severely mentally unstable people be dosing on LSD?

Um yes? Quite a bit of psychiatric research was done with LSD, and it showed promising results. Similar to MDMA, the original intended use of LSD was for psychiatric treatment, and it like MDMA, it worked. The only reason research stopped was in response to political pressure.

Saying it's a right also loosens one of the major goals of this site, harm reduction.

But saying it should be restricted would be a major blow against the argument for freedom of choice, or "pursuit of happiness" if you're American.

If the view that doing drugs is a right was put into the mainstream environment, not only would there be less care in what people ingest, but there would be less care in the combinations of drugs that people use and there would be a lessened view on the damage that certain drugs can induce.

Isn't that a good thing? I don't like the idea of the government making it illegal to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes at the same time. I don't like the idea of the government banning salt because salt is bad for you. I don't like the idea of the government putting a restricting on how much butter I can put on my potato. Keeping people safe from themselves is not the government's job, and it never has been. Most people really don't want to live in some crappy nanny state where you need government approval to wipe your own ass.

edit: fixed like 20 spelling errors.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	good show
	Agreed, regarding governments having too much power and nannying people.
	very good information
	awesome post, excellent point
	thoughtful and colourful post

[Metomni]

The problem is that restricting a drug basically makes the person restricting it either a liar or an idiot because they can't even define what they are restricting.

I'm not talking about a person restricting a drug at all. Simply because it is a priveledge doesn't mean someone is restricting it or limiting it's intake. It's the same way ingesting exotic fruits or vegetables is a priveledge, or if you like the termonology better, a luxury.

Let's look at cocaine as the example. Primary brain effect is a sharp increase in dopamine. So then the law should have a general bias against dopamine because we've established that dopamine is bad, true? Well now we need to ban alcohol, caffeine, sex, being young, chocolate, aerobic exercise, and video games. Ok so dopamine is not bad. Maybe we can ban cocaine because it's from a plant. That makes food illegal, so we can't do that either. Maybe we can ban it because it's a refined drug from a plant! Well then ephedrine, aspirin, codeine, morphine, and oxycodone should be illegal.

First of all, simply because it's primary brain effect is action on the dopamine receptors, this does not mean the conclusion is that dopamine is bad. Part of it is the specific way in which it acts on dopamine receptors, but there are also other health factors involved, the most obvious of which being addiction.

I'm not arguing over whether or not it should be legal or illegal, that wasn't even part of the discussion. Drawing inferences from the fact that cocaine is illegal to the fact that video games and sex should be illegal is just not even logical from the viewpoint of the original discussion. I dislike the drug laws just as much as the next person, but that wasn't my point in the distinction between "right" and "priveledge".

Um yes? Quite a bit of psychiatric research was done with LSD, and it showed promising results. Similar to MDMA, the original intended use of LSD was for psychiatric treatment, and it like MDMA, it worked. The only reason research stopped was in response to political pressure.

I understand this, but in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy with LSD would be administered in very pure, very small initial amounts, and would be in a very controlled setting. This is not what happens as you probably know. You don't know what you're getting on that blotter, nor do you know its potency, purity, or the ill effects it could endow in a non-structured setting. Simply because it has medicinal benefits, this does not mean that anyone and everyone should be allowed to freely ingest as much as they want straight off the streets.

But saying it should be restricted would be a major blow agains the argument for freedom of choice, or "persuit of happiness" if you're American.

How so? I don't understand how it does this. I'm not even saying it should be restricted, I'm simply saying the view of something being a right vs. something being a priveledge is unhealthy for the viewpoint towards drug use.

Isn't that a good thing? I don't like the idea of the government making it illegal to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes at the same time. I don't like the idea of the government banning salt because salt is bad for you. I don't like the idea of the government putting a restricting on how much butter I can put on my potato. Keeping people safe from themselves is not the government's job, and it never has been. Most peopole really don't want to live in some crappy nanny state where you need government approval to wipe your own ass.

Yes, but careless drug use is just as bad, if not worse, than the governments restrictions on any and all drug use.

[FuBai]

I would argue that metomni raises a valid point, although it may be somewhat confused. I think it is important to distinguish between the rights of government and the rights of the people. I would hesitate to say that using drugs is a human right, but I would emphatically say government has no right to prohibit them. In effect what I am saying is that you don't have a right to drugs, it's just that no one else has the right to stop you.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Agreed good sir. :)

[ShawnD]

I'm not talking about a person restricting a drug at all. Simply because it is a privilege doesn't mean someone is restricting it or limiting it's intake. It's the same way ingesting exotic fruits or vegetables is a privilege, or if you like the terminology better, a luxury.

We're probably on the same page but using different words. I'm using "right" as meaning something can be used until taken away under special conditions.
Example:
"I have the right to vote in the federal election unless I am a convicted felon. "
The initial assumption is that something is allowed. The exception is that it's not allowed.

Privilege would be the opposite. The initial assumption is that something cannot be done unless an exception is granted. Example:
"It is illegal to sell cigarettes unless you have a license."

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very nice explanation sir, I do believe we're on the same page. :)

[Nature Boy]

Drugs allow us to control our minds in the ways we choose to. I think it's a pretty fundamental human right. Prohibition of drug supply is one thing, becoming the thought police is another.

[ReAlitY-HoLds-NonE]

Its not any more of a right to use drugs than it is to do many other things, the government have banned it for fuck knows whatever reasons, but the general population do hold that the government is right and they do know best, and for this reason, drugs are often seen as against human rights, as 'they take away freedom' as many of SWIM's teachers have said to him, along with the typical 'Your going to regret this in future' ..where all the students are blindly following them. It doesnt help much that two of these teachers have degree's in ethics... which assumbly makes them seem like the moral lawgivers to all the students. Humans are mindless, what rights do we have?.. not much really if we do not even know what is right, if however, we cannot say what is right, or even what is wrong without simply prescribing moral opionion rather than what may be true, we cannot dictate what is and what isnt a human right. Therefore, drugs should essentually neither be right, nor wrong, which im sure many people agree on, they are simply a means to a further ends. The ends is often what is seen as what is bad, as the general public are split between academic and hedonistic persuits, where drugs give results in both, the issue remains vague, yet again highlighting that they are neither wrong nor right... However, this all remains relative to a social, or collective context. Remove this, and bring in the individual, it is their choice within their own lives. Of which the government shouldnt interfere with...

[Jatelka]

A right to a private life and a right to freedom of expression are already granted to me. Yet somehow that excludes psychedelic drugs.

Go figure

[fiveleggedrat]

The problem is that so many laws are based on heresay and morals rather than logic.

Logic based law would not have such a flawed drug ideology.

[Expat98]

Originally Posted by fiveleggedrat

The problem is that so many laws are based on heresay and morals rather than logic.

But my argument is that the use of force to prevent someone from altering their consciousness is NOT based on morality - at least not any kind of morality that I respect.

BTW, I have read with interest all of the comments above...maybe I will try to put together some more thoughts on this at some point. In my mind, the issue of prohibition for "soft drugs" is pretty clear cut - there is no valid moral argument for it whatsoever. I am also against prohibition for "hard drugs"/addictive drugs, but the issue gets more complicated there, and the more I think about it the more complicated I realize it is.

[Metomni]

Then the issue becomes the varying reasons for differing peoples to classify what is a "soft" drug and what is a "hard" drug.

There are some pretty valid arguments people can use to justify that anything stronger than tylenol is a "hard" drug.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Expat98

But my argument is that the use of force to prevent someone from altering their consciousness is NOT based on morality - at least not any kind of morality that I respect.

BTW, I have read with interest all of the comments above...maybe I will try to put together some more thoughts on this at some point. In my mind, the issue of prohibition for "soft drugs" is pretty clear cut - there is no valid moral argument for it whatsoever. I am also against prohibition for "hard drugs"/addictive drugs, but the issue gets more complicated there, and the more I think about it the more complicated I realize it is.

Yes, the whole hard drugs thing is more complicated. I am in favour of decriminalising possesion, but rather than have legalised sale such as we have for alcohol, I would advocate the use of the swiss system in which addicts may come into a clinic up to 3 times a day and get a shot of however much they need, but are not allowed to take it away with them. This sort of system works for heroin and methamphetamine but cocaine, especially crack cocaine, has such a short period of duration that it would be very difficult to make this method work.

[ShawnD]

Originally Posted by Metomni

There are some pretty valid arguments people can use to justify that anything stronger than tylenol is a "hard" drug.

Tylenol is the leading cause of liver failure; it's actually worse than alcohol. I'm surprised that it's still legal.

[fiveleggedrat]

I remember the recently deceased George Carlin saying, more or less, that there is no such thing as a "human right". Swim has to agree, it is very difficult defining things such as "rights".

Swim thinks much of the drug argument is convincing people that drug use is not immoral, and that the laws regarding such were made on false pretense/bad information/prejudice.

[Expat98]

Well, now there's a marijuana legalization initiative in California emphasizing the human rights angle:

We also hold these truths to be self-evident... That the history of marijuana prohibition is a history of repeated injuries and infringements upon the inalienable rights, powers, and best interests of the People.

[Kpinman]

Good book and worth the read. I agree (obviously) that drug use is a human right.

[Coconut]

I would say that anything that does not deprive others of liberty or cause severe harm to others or the Earth itself (anything that is not murder, rape, mass deforestation, war etc.) is an inalienable human right. Basic anarchist philosophy.

[Expat98]

Discussion of drug use as a constitutional right in addition to being an inalienable human right. (I moved this post to another thread, since these are really separate arguments.)

[sgurrman]

It seems to me that the notion of drug use being a human right is a thorny one, because what we consider to be our inalienable rights are not god- or cosmos-given, but very culture-bound, and change greatly through time and space. Rights for female and non-white members of our species which we take as so obvious that they don't warrant debate were, until very recently in human history, not considered rights at all. The shifting sands of what constitutes rights is further demonstrated by the notion that greater rights should be given to certain animals, especially apes, on the basis of their levels of self-consciousness (see 'The Great Ape Project' edited by Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri).

To my knowledge, attempts to emphasise the use of drugs as a human right have fallen on stony ground. It was one of Timothy Leary's arguments, that we have the right to expand our consciousness. More recently, I think this was the original basis of Casey Hardison's defence (currently serving 20 years in prison in England for producing LSD and other psychedelic/entheogenic substances). Interestingly, he has changed tack, and is emphasising the 'drug discrimination' aspect of his sentence instead, which I suspect is a more 'objective' position to argue.

Experience thus far suggests that the majorities and the authorities are not ready/prepared to grant the using of drugs as a human right, in the same way that 500 years ago it didn't grant any human rights to the folk indigenous to South and Central America. This could change, but I fear it will be a while yet until the idea is generally taken on board. But that might just be me being pessimistic in my hoary old age......

[Alfa]

Drug use are a human right based upon the universal declaration of human rights. Before this can be affirmed by court, someone will have to go through many courts to climb his or her way up to the highest international court possible. Here are the relevant articles:

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Liberty of person can be explained as the right to decide what goes into your body and being free from drug tests.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

This may be applied to the difference between the different rights of users of drugs that happen to be illegal and drugs that happen to be legal. The preferred choice of drug is one of personal taste. In essence prosecution of illicit drug users is prosecution of their taste and preference.

And most importantly:

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to alter their thoughts and consciousness, as they wish.
Everyone has the right to use drugs in a religious setting. (this has already been established)

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Everyone has the right to use drugs as a medium to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.
Drug use can also be seen as a way of expression.

Article 22.

• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Everyone has the right to use drugs to develop his personality and to accomplish realization. Especially when using drugs that have a cultural background in his society.
For example: drugs used in adolescence rites in certain cultures.

Article 24.

• Everyone has the right to ... leisure

Drugs can be used for leisure.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Excellent analysis - thanks for contributing to this thread.

[Lobsang]

You see the courts are not concerned with the correct interpretation of the laws protecting our freedom. They are concerned with an agenda. Whether that means being racist or simply vilolating human rights.

Judge Maloney of the Fifth Circuit Court ruled against

the Peyote Way Church of God in Arizona
on October 28, 1988 stating that:


1) There is a limited supply of the Holy Sacrament peyote, and all of it is needed for the Native American Church of North America.

2) The government is authorized to make laws to protect the public even if those laws infringe on the Church's religious rights, therefore the Federal and Texas State drug laws are legitimate.

3) Federal and Texas State laws are not racist, they're political. Native American Church members belong to a sovereign nation.
"The court therefore concludes that regardless of the sincerity of Peyote Way's members' beliefs in peyotism, the exemption provided the Native American Church cannot be expanded to include non-Native American Church use of peyote. The Court further concludes that the overriding interest of Congress to control the use of narcotics and psychotropic drugs outweighs the interest of expanding an exemption that clearly was meant to be a grandfather clause, and not a full-scale exemption of religious peyote use. Finding that Congress' intent to exempt the Native American Church is not meant to extend to other Churches which use peyote, the Court finds that Peyote Way's claims for violation of the free exercise clause and establishment clause of the First Amendment must fail. "