Freedom and Drugs : About morality, state and free will

in #society6 years ago (edited)


A drug is a substance that significantly alters our emotional states or perceptions, is usually administered in non-therapeutic contexts and in many cases generates additions. Particularly anything can be considered a drug. At the pharmacological level, there are no criteria that allow us to separate sugar, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco from the rest. Today almost everyone is unaware that alcohol or coffee are as much drugs as heroin or cocaine; it is relevant to underline this because the pattern of behavior and the assessments we make of legal drugs can be easily extrapolated to the rest of these substances.

On many occasions these types of drugs are judged as immoral and are seen as a threat to society, no doubt there are reasons that can justify and sustain this argument, for example in the year 2017 according to the national institute on drug abuse more than 72,000 people died by drug overdoses, these data sound even worse when compared to other possible causes of death such as firearms or motor vehicle accidents. This is undoubtedly a critical situation and drug-related news is increasingly being received about drugs and their bad effects. In most cases, however, the arguments against drugs are illogical, lack strong support and are often based on religious and cultural principles.

When we talk about illicit drugs, we are talking about drugs that, like other legal drugs, have psychedelic effects and alter the brains of people who ingest this substance for a certain period of time, and which may have different repercussions depending on the type of drug. Drugs like tobacco and alcohol are just as dangerous as heroin and cocaine. This goes unnoticed by many people who make judgments without logical thought and from the fullness of moral ignorance. This goes hand in hand with the media's campaign against drugs, such as the government, which is responsible for conveying a series of false premises that make it increasingly difficult to construct solid reflections on the subject of drugs and how it should be dealt with.

If we know then that sugar, alcohol and tobacco are just as harmful as any other drug, why are they allowed and not the others? The answer is clear and simple, the legal status of a substance is linked to a political-cultural perception and subjection of a given society. Therefore, there may be an infinite number of arguments as well as counter-arguments on the subject of drugs. This leads me to question the following question:

Is wine a form of brutality or a method to relax?

Is tobacco a form of suicide or a form of stress?

These same questions are also the answer: Neither of both, depending on the use we make of it. There is a very thin line between vice and pleasure, if we affirm that pleasure is liberation then vice would be slavery or dependence. The most dangerous therefore of a drug is its addictive property. To cause addiction, a process or phenomenon must occur in a part of the brain called the nucleus of accumbens. When a person is in a state of joy or pleasure, levels of the central nervous system neurotransmitter dopamine increase. Drugs being agents that alter the perception of time and space, personality and esteem lead to an increase in high concentrations of dopamine responsible for the pleasant sensations that derive in euphoria and disinhibition, which makes them addictive agents.

https://upliftconnect.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AddictionFeature.jpg

When I refer to addiction then I am not referring to a physiological need or addiction but to a merely neuronal and psychological addiction. It is the one in charge that an alcoholic be an alcoholic and that a drug addict be a drug addict. This means that people who use this type of substance often no longer do so for recreation, but rather as a routine that is essential for subsistence or a slavery-like necessity. Cannabis, LSD, cocaine or any other drug ceases to be a plus and becomes a minus for the lives of those who use it when they become dependent on any substance for a living.

Plato wrote a little-known dialogue in which he spoke about the arithmetic of pleasure called "Filebo". Pleasure is, to a large extent, relaxation or satisfaction of a deficit. The greater the deficit, the greater the pleasure, the more pleasant the water becomes to no one as pleasant as to the thirsty, nor the more conformable the bite of a loaf of bread after hours of starvation. So it is with the pleasure provided by drugs, I can contract the habit of smoking tobacco for it I smoke a cigarette every fifteen minutes or I can, on the contrary, enjoy a well-stocked pipe on Sunday nights before going to bed, when is the pleasure to be obtained from tobacco most accurately calculated?

The arithmetic of pleasure is difficult to implement in the face of some drugs that provide us with immediate satisfaction; yet I am optimistic and believe that anyone with education and reasoning has the perfect ability to enjoy drugs without enslaving themselves to vice. After all, over time we learn - not all of us - not to overuse video games, the Internet and we learn to moderate ourselves with respect to chocolate and later with alcohol and cigarettes.

It is therefore that I do not judge those who become addicted to drugs and let their lives pass before their eyes, nor do I judge those who become obsessed with watching television without doing anything else for hours, days or weeks. Each person is responsible for their own decisions and therefore as long as it does not affect my freedom I will have no problem with it. I am a person who believes in freedom and therefore I do not understand the misuse of the word "vice" as a moral fault but as an excessive habit that I personally find vitally unsatisfactory.

http://thenewinquiry.com/app/uploads/2016/10/narco1-1111.jpg

The character then of drugs and how to solve the problem associated with over-consumption of these substances is subject to moral outrage. Just as there are people like me who think that freedom is a right and every human being is concerned about what to do and what not to do with his or her body, which includes the state's obligation to respect the citizen's decision about which substances to use or consume. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the consumption of certain drugs is immoral and should be combated without accepting any type of use. Many times these speeches are dressed in warnings about the dangers of drugs to health, usually people whose arguments are based on relative and religious subjections.

It is therefore important to understand and recognize the different moral values behind these two different ways of thinking. When it is clear how to prioritize conflicts of values, problems become technical, and scientists can then easily use the methods at their disposal to solve them.

In practice, we do not find pure policies, but rather, in all cases, conflicts of values are weighted. Even the most prohibitionist states like the United States implement risk reduction policies to preserve the health of their citizens by violating their freedoms. In fact, there are many models of regulation and to speak of prohibitionism is a simplification. For example, driving a car without a license is prohibited, but there are legal ways to drive. Similarly, the sale and consumption of alcohol is prohibited in certain areas, and its distribution usually requires restrictive licenses, thus limiting the lives of citizens and subjecting it to bureaucracy with illogical regulations.

These policies violate the most important premise on which the U.S. Constitution is based, freedom. The state is no wiser and has no moral and superior capacity to decide what to forbid and what not to forbid individuals of its nation. Each human being seeks meaning and happiness in his own way, as long as he does not violate freedom, nor transgress someone to find his own, no one should stand in his way, in the end happiness is an inherent human search.

On Liberty, John Stuart Mill posed a classic problem in modern terms: what are the limits of the power that society and the State can legitimately exercise over the individual. Mill says that in principle each person should be free to do what does not harm other people and only affects himself. On this basis, it is possible to ask to what extent it is legitimate for the State to control or prohibit conduct which, like drug use, may be harmful but which mainly affects the agent. Among the various society-rejected behaviors that Mill mentions in his book is opium smoking.

Drug policy aims to control, either by regulating or by prohibiting, the consumption of potent mind- and behaviour-altering substances, which can be risky, harmful, even addictive. This policy is based on the paternalism of the State. Any intervention by the State on behalf of a person, whether that intervention is for the benefit of that person or not, is paternalistic. No one can deny that paternalism is desirable with regard to the most vulnerable members of society, such as minors and those who cannot fend for themselves because of their physical or mental condition or advanced age. As Mill says, the principle of freedom applies only to those who have reached the age of majority and are at their fullest potential.

https://baltimoresbest1.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/drugs.jpg?w=574&h=416

According to Mill's principle of freedom, society's only reason for restricting the freedom of one individual is to prevent him from harming another. Anti-drug policy is allegedly based on this principle, since drug use also affects others. Its effects on third parties are twofold. First, a person under the influence of drugs can cause accidents, commit crimes, or perform actions that are not crimes but are annoying or harmful to those in his or her immediate circle. Second, the consumer may cause harm by omission, such as neglect of family or work.

Mill says in Chapter 4 of On Freedom that the vicious or thoughtless individual who harms others by action or omission must be punished by law or moral disapproval, but what justifies his punishment is not his vices or his recklessness but the harm he causes to others. That is, reprehensible conduct as such cannot be subject to prevention or punishment; society and the State can intervene only if such conduct harms others, in which case the intervention should be limited to punishing the harm inflicted on others.

Starting from Mill's philosophy it is clear that the state should not intervene until a person begins to generate social decision, the current state paternalism and authoritarian states excuse themselves from this same rhetoric to control people and force them to decide what to do and what not to do. This is why freedom is always threatened by any institution or system of power because it violates the human condition of freedom and the right to self-manage.

Any pursuit of happiness should be rational and logical, the state should raise awareness through awareness campaigns but should not intervene in people's lives. If we really want to keep people from becoming addicted to these drugs we should give them the same status as other existing, legal and equally dangerous drugs, keeping them banned simply creates a kind of Streisand effect on the people who make them more and more attractive and dangerous.


Pleasure is a freedom-song,
But it is not freedom.
It is the blossoming of your desires,
But it is not their fruit.
It is a depth calling unto a height,
But it is not the deep nor the high.

- Gibran Kahlil Gibran


Notes:



http://thoughtsin-time.vornix.blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cropped-LOGO.pngPosted from my blog with SteemPress : Here


Sort:  

Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

Interesting post you have here. Freedom on drugs. This would be a hard topic to discuss because everyone has their own view on how to deal with this.

There's really not any solution. The government will try to regulate what's being sold, like alcohol or tobacco. However I know people who are under 21 that can always get alcohol. Not hard.
Harder drugs are heavily illegal here, but I think I have heard that in other countries where drugs like this are deemed legal, but frowned upon. Those countries have a much lower death rate than the US in drug overdoses.

Maybe if we give all humans the freedom to be in control of their own body, they will realize that they need to take care of themselves better.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by ThoughtsIN-TIME from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70597.89
ETH 3559.60
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.77