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

[Panthers007]

Art Kleps, in his tome on the Leary-Circle during the early days (legal) of LSD25 etc. - appeared before the Senate to testify about rights. His inquisitor was then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. The transcript, in full in his book Millbrook, is a fascinating read and provides much insight into the question of rights as they apply to one's own consciousness. As valid today as was then.

Hint: We lost.

Someone have a link to this online?

[robertone]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

Art Kleps, in his tome on the Leary-Circle during the early days (legal) of LSD25 etc. - appeared before the Senate to testify about rights. His inquisitor was then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. The transcript, in full in his book Millbrook, is a fascinating read and provides much insight into the question of rights as they apply to one's own consciousness. As valid today as was then.

Hint: We lost.

Someone have a link to this online?

I found two online links of the 'Millbrook' book.

One at the Kleptonian Neo-American Church

and one at Lyceum.

However, I couldn't find the frase Panthers007 is referring to.
But then again, I didn't read all the text.

[drug-bot]

The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong.
There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties
or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are
to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true,
even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly.
If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way
in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified.
There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty.
-- Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham

i think this is a very important qoute, it was written not with drugs in mind but it greatly appllies to them, is it real freedom to go to church and waive your nations flag around? or to do what those people find destructive amd deviant while in fact causeing them no physical or property harm ( such as popping pills, mainlining heroin , doing coke for the pure enjoment it bring), having a fun time with friends through (smoking pot, rolling on E), and having life changing and spiritual epiphany through the use of (psycedelic ,and dissacociatives). and having just plain fun using all these plus other 'illicit' substancese.
real freedom means it will generaly piss off someone elses sensibilities but if it causes them no physical or property they should just have to deal with anothers verion of freedom, that would be an ideal world, but it wont happen overnight its going to take lots of work and education.

[BlondieUK]

Drugs are banned because they're "dangerous" right?

Skydiving is dangerous, driving a car is dangerous, etc

The only right they have to ban something is if it causes harm to others.

If swim wants to take MDMA, who has the right to tell him he can't? He's not harming anyone.

[sgurrman]

This has become a thought-provoking thread. Thanks, Alfa, for providing the basis for seeing drug use as a human right, at least the theory. And thanks, Expat, for challenging folk on Drugs Forum to look more deeply into their attitudes and check out to see if they are still on some guilt-trip.

Certain drugs are illegal because they are dangerous: that is the official line. However, there exists ample evidence to demonstrate that the general level of danger is not reflected in the legal position, especially with regard to various psychedelics and MDMA. Objectively, there is no basis for the curent legal situation whatsoever. The discrepancy between harm level and legal status is so great to suggest that something else is going on here - something which we it is best to be aware of and not naive about if we want things to change at some point (this is a general rule-of-thumb that I use: if the logical position differs too much from the what is actually taking place, look for the usually unconscious factors ruling the situation).

As Expat wrote, it's mainly a 'moral' thing getting in the way of a general recognition of drug use as a human right. It is, however, a reflection of a particular brand of morality, one which I feel has little in common with what I would call a 'natural morality.' In the USA and UK at least, it is a puritan-style morality, which sees drugs, not so much as harmful, but as morally 'bad' and 'evil'. Degenerate? It's the same kind of morality as that which remembers Bill Clinton for his fun-and-games with Ms Lewinsky more than anything else he did during his eight years as President.

This sort of morality card has been played in the past with some success. In the 1930s marijuana was stigmatised as the drug of the blacks (the term used in those days), who were poor, liked sex, lazy, and, well, black. Similarly, LSD was demonised as the drugs of hippies, who were dirty, long-haired, and lazy (laziness especially offends puritan conditioning, it would seem).

So it seems that this is the major psychological block in the way of many folk in positions of authority taking an objective look at drug use. I'm not sure how useful all this is practically, except that it is supposed to be good to 'know the enemy'. In the meantime, as Expat says, it's important to keep on chipping away......

We can also go Jungian and surmise that, in a culture dedicated to a one-eyed brand of scientific materialism and consumerism, the image of drug use corresponds to some aspect of the collective shadow. Modern capitalist-consumerist societies depend for their successful functioning on people having a superficial and conformist mindset: don't do anything to rock the boat, just spend, spend, spend. So drugs that may open up doorways in the mind represent a threat to successful collective ego-functioning. The main response of the unconscious mind, individual or collective, to its shadow is to disown and demonise it.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Quality posts - thanks for adding to this thread.
	Good informative post, thought Provoking stuff. Cheers.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by sgurrman

(the term used in those days), who were poor, liked sex, lazy, and, well, black. Similarly, LSD was demonised as the drugs of hippies, who were dirty, long-haired, and lazy (laziness especially offends puritan conditioning, it would seem).

Which is a joke, I mean, with conservatives applying their ideology on others, there's hardly any profession served, as it was supposed to be, i.e. medicine for addicts, or attorneys fighting for the rich like econmical players and politicians in lobbys, celebreties, but not for those poor workers, tryin' to claim their rights, as there's nothing to earn with that, Serving a job and forcing one's ideology onto this job even does more harm than if those jobs stayed unoccupied and conservatives at home, or institutions, ground on community or official fundings, didn't exist at all and all stayed just at home, fixing their gardens or grew hemp.

[Tikal]

In an essay about the right to use drugs so what exactly do I have to mention? do I have to discuss about legalisation or about the creation of a human right?
can u please give me some ideas... thank you

[nick23]

Originally Posted by Tikal

In an essay about the right to use drugs so what exactly do I have to mention? do I have to discuss about legalisation or about the creation of a human right?
can u please give me some ideas... thank you

Just quote a lot of J.S. Mills and maybe a bit of libertarianism.


As far as I know drug use is not mentioned in the 1948 declaration of human rights .So drug use is a bit of a rights grey area.

Activists are better off focusing on the numerous human rights that prohibition tramples all over.

Reputation Comments on this post:

The last line of this post is very valid

[Coconut]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees "security of person" in Article 3.

Section 12 of the South African Bill of Rights, for example, expands on this, by stating:

Originally Posted by South African Bill of Rights

(2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right *

(b) to security in and control over their body; ...

Also, it is worth noting...

Originally Posted by Article 27

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Both of these articles may be used to argue that drug prohibition is contrary to human rights.

Some may quote Article 29, section 2, to contradict such arguments:

Originally Posted by Article 29, Section 2

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

However, it could just as easily be argued that drug prohibition's purpose is not to secure recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of the people (in fact, it is contrary to this goal), and that it does not defend morality, public order or the general welfare of a democratic society, but actually undermines the very principles of democracy.

[dyingtomorrow]

I think self medication (with any kind of bio/psychoactive chemical) is a basic human right - medical information should be made available to all, but the decision should be left to the individual.

[sergei77]

These guys are currently running human rights arguments in the courts in the UK, interesting reading:

http://www.drugequality.org/

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting link, an organisation I hadn't come across before

[sandoz1943]

The problem lies with a system that has painted drug users as sub-human evil doing monsters and views all drugs in the same light no matter what level of harm they may cause. Until drug users can come out of the proverbial closet and people can recognize that they are not realy monsters but ordinary people like themselves and and open, unbiased,and fact based dialog can occure this view of drugs and drug users will continue to plague society.

This is the kind of crap I'm talk'n about! Kind of funny though. Rarrrr! watch out for the monster!

Reputation Comments on this post:

precisely, good post

[Spucky]

One short question: Where the "Consum" of Drugs is forbidden?
In the US., Mexico, Ireland?

Because in EU-Country`s like Germany, Austria, NL, Switzerland
it is legal "to consume" all kind of Drugs!
(it is forbidden to buy, sell, get as a Present, to find on a Street, to hold, etc. ....)

Our Consume-Room`s get protected by this Law!

[Tikal]

what is the difference between drugs and liberty, drugs and freedom and drugs and autonomy?

[Spucky]

Originally Posted by Tikal

what is the difference between drugs and liberty, drugs and freedom and drugs and autonomy?

Liberty, Freedom and Autonomy need sincere Opinion!
Drugs just need People who a Prisoners of the Monkeymind!

But if People like to be a Prisoner no law have the Right to forbid this.
For a hole Society it looks different, here we need law`s who protect her,
to many Weak People and to many bad People outside.

But what "Protection" means and where prejudice starts?

[Sven99]

There are several reasons that the human rights aspect of drug poolicy reform is under-emphasized as compared to the economic and relative-harm arguments.

1. Economic and relative harm effects of drug policy are concrete and can be measured. We can study the effects of current drug policy and demonstrate effectively that they are more expensive and cause more harm than alternatives. We cannot do this in the same way regarding the human rights effects of drug policy, and as such, it is a much weaker argument.

2. Society is still prejudiced against users of certain drugs. Arguing that people have a right to inject themselves with heroin is like going back in time 100 years and arguing that men have the right to have sex with each other. The truth of the matter is irrelevant if the majority are against you.

3. Arguing that drug use is a human right is an argument from ideology - and as such it is something of a fall-back course of attack. The prohibitionist argument is founded in ideology, while the reform argument focuses on critical appraisal. To focus on the right to use drugs would be to argue on the prohibitionists' own terms, and since the majority do not accept drug use as a human right, that would be a losing battle.


This is not to say that drug use is not a human right. I firmly believe that to discriminate based on an individuals choice of drug or choice of administration of that drug is no more acceptable than discriminating based on an individuals race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. But I don't generally argue that point when trying to persuade people of the benefits of legalisation and regulation because its not as convincing an approach.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Well said. Sad but true.
	Well written post and thought provoking. Reminds others of the true nature of the masses.

[Euthanatos93420]

I love this ideology as a personal approach towards drugs. Embracing one's drug use with freedom at heart gives one the power to chose not to use as well as to use.

Everyone struggles with self control issues. These issues are an internal componant, not external and as such cannot be fixed by external measures such as prohibition.

As much as I love the philosophy as a tool for personal alchemy and managing personal drug usage, I must agree with Sven99. When arguing against drugs, it is much more effective to explain the social mechanics of prohibition and show people why legalization/regulation is more socially effective, prosperous, and generally beneficial to the standard of living of all citizens of such a nation. The facts and alternate perspectives brought about in this manner are solidly logical and of historical evidence. These things break through social stigma faster than personal opinion.

While this ideology is certainly much more than 'opinion' it is difficult to show that to people who hold a stigma.

That's like telling a KKK leader to stop being racist because black people are human too.

Just because you think it's right and true doesnt stop them from dismissing your argument as personal opinion. Facts, logic, and science hold weight in peoples mind and if you can use these effectively to show people what's really going on and pull the wool off their eyes....THEN you can show them the ideology of drugs as a human right because the philosophy is what clicks the rest into place.

Also,

#4 It's such an old argument that it isn't used anymore because it hasn't worked in the past. That's not to say it won't work in the future but they've set up several stigmatic propaganda that we've much work to disprove before we get there.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great observation that many do not see. We are but stepping stones on the path towards social acceptance. People need to...