May 3, 2019. Peter Irwin presented “What's Wrong With Our War On Drugs”
I (Ira Glickstein) was asked by our leader, Bob Brooke, to conduct the Discussion period, because Bob, recovering from his recent hip surgery, is using a walker.
To stimulate the discussion, I made some controversial remarks. Peter, and members present at the meeting, engaged in a high-level discussion. Peter has suggested, via email, that we continue via an online discussion on this Blog.
Accordingly, I have created this Topic and invite Peter (and anyone else) to use the Comment feature and join in!
Peter and others who wish to join in may scroll to the bottom of this Blog posting, enter your Comment in the text box (or click on the "comment" hypertext if the Comment text box is not there), and post your reactions. Let's continue our high-level discussion!
Love (and respect) Ira
PS: If you Comment as "Anonymous", I'd appreciate it if you identify yourself by including your real name at the end of your Comment. advTHANKSance.
PS: If you Comment as "Anonymous", I'd appreciate it if you identify yourself by including your real name at the end of your Comment. advTHANKSance.
Dear Ira,
ReplyDeleteYour comment at my talk on Friday surprised me, not only for its seeming lack of understanding of drug abuse but also for its lack of empathy. You (and a few others) said, in so many words, that you would have no compunction about withholding Narcan (naloxone) from an overdosed addict.
We all engage in ways of stimulating our brain's reward system. Some gamble, some engage in risky activities, some eat junk food or glut themselves, some ingest or smoke mind-altering substances, and some are satisfied with sex. Among the subset who use addictive substances, many are poor and/or depressed. It is the only pleasure readily available in their lives. Some of these drug users overdose because they are unaware of the potency of what they are taking, some are trying to commit suicide, and some have a genetic predisposition to dependency requiring ever larger doses to attain a high. Do they deserve to die for this? I have known some who are quite famous or quite prominent in our society. Why are you so dismissive of them?
Cheers,
Peter Irwin
Peter: As usual, I enjoyed your talk. It was well thought out, well prepared, and well delivered. I believe that, in my role as Moderator of the Discussion period, I asked three substantive questions:
ReplyDelete1) Back 50 years ago, a friend suggested the illegal drug problem could be addressed if authorities, when they intercepted drug shipments, rather than destroying them, would add poison to them and put them back into circulation. Thus the illegal drug dealers would be killing their clientele! Isn't that what drug dealers are doing now by adding dangerous amounts of fontanel and over-dosing and killing their customers? In response, Peter questioned my respect for life, my empathy, and lack of compassion.
2) I know about Narcan from watching Dan Abrams' "Live PD" program on the A&E network. Narcan revives over-dosed people, who would otherwise die, in minutes. Perhaps repeat-over-dosers should be allowed to die. (Later in the meeting, a woman who had ER experience, expressed how she had the same thought seeing repeat over-dosed people week after week, including one who complained that the Narcan rescue had interrupted his high! In response, Peter questioned my respect for life, my empathy, and lack of compassion.
3) I noted that one of Peter's charts said "All drugs should be legal" and asked if all Prescription Drugs should be freely available with the Government regulating only purity and proper labeling instructions and warnings, and minimum age to purchase, and taxing purchases, similar to how we regulate alcohol. In response, Peter agreed!
In my next Comment, I intend to address the Narcan issue.
Love, Ira
(continued)
ReplyDeleteLack of empathy in withholding Narcan from a (repeatedly) overdosed addict.
I agree with Peter that "We all engage in ways of stimulating our brain's reward system. Some gamble, some engage in risky activities, ... some ingest or smoke mind-altering substances[. M]any are poor and/or depressed. … some are trying to commit suicide, and some have a genetic predisposition to dependency requiring ever larger doses to attain a high." [Emphasis added]
If I was the child of a drug addict I might have what Peter calls a "genetic predisposition to dependency" or, even if not genetic, being raised by a single parent or abusive parents in bad circumstances might have led me to become an addict myself. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
Indeed, that is exactly why I think your "empathy" for overdosing addicts is misplaced! We should, IMHO, reserve our empathy for the future victims of the suicidal repeatedly overdosing addict!
Suicide, as you know, is a crime. Indeed, when successful it is a Capital crime (the automatic penalty is Death). But, when not successful, attempted suicide may be regarded as akin to attempted murder, and thus calls for some type of penalty.
As we know, most drug addicts commit crimes to support their drug habits, including violent crimes against others, including their family members. They steal from and violently abuse their spouses, their children, their siblings, and their parents. Many addicts also become gang members and drug dealers. They also overload police, fire, and medical services, depriving others more deserving of public services.
Thus, when I watch Live PD on the A&E network and see an overdosed drug addict passed out, I ask myself if the world would be better off if the police and medics just let Nature take its course" and let the addict expire. This addict has failed at life, why not allow his or her suicide attempt to succeed? Why frustrate the natural course of Nature with a dose of Narcan? The addict has been dealt a bad luck deal by Nature and is on a self-selected drug-induced "high". Let him or her go out on a "high" note!
Peter asks: "Do they deserve to die for this? I have known some who are quite famous or quite prominent in our society. Why are you so dismissive of them?"
Well, yes. Some few (very few) may be prominent in our society and may have contributed greatly to our civilization. Yes. But, when we use Narcan to revive them it is more likely they will go on, still addicted, and further victimize and perhaps kill prominent and highly valuable members of society. They will go on and have more children who may be genetically disposed to addiction and who will certainly be abused in many ways - children likely to go on to their own anti-social lives.
So, in summary, I do empathize with people! I empathize with the repeat overdosing addicts future victims (who will certainly be members of the addicts families, the addicts themselves, and could be me or you or members of our families).
Your solution approach, as you ably and repeatedly expressed at the Philosophy Club meeting is "education". Well, who knows more about and is better "educated" on the dangers of drug abuse than the doctors and nurses who deal with addicts? And, how often do we hear about doctors and nurses and others in the medical field who, themselves, become addicted to drugs? Pardon me, but I doubt that the overdosed addict lying in the street is less "educated" about the drug problem than you or me. He or she has seen, in very personal ways, close friends and family members and neighbors who have suffered the agony of drug dependence and associated criminal behavior and family abuse. If that type of very real experience has not "educated" them, nothing will!
Love, Ira
Ira,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind comments about my presentation. Thank you also for establishing this forum for discussion of the issues that our presentations broach. I wonder how many read it? We encourage participation.
In response to your comments:
1. Authorities should add poison to intercepted narcotics and put them back into circulation? Are you condoning government murder? Why not add poison to alcoholic beverages? Is that respect for life, in your view?
2. A person unintentionally overdoses, a common occurrence because the quality of substances and doses are unregulated. Just let them die? Why not let alcoholics who overdose die? Why not let smokers who get lung cancer die? Why not let obese people who suffer heart attacks die? Is that respect for life in your view? Many people saved from suicide respond, "Why did you not let me die?" When people recover from drug addiction or are treated for depression, they are appreciative of intervention during their down period.
3. What I said was that our drug laws should be made consistent. If people can damage their bodies with alcohol without a prescription, and give themselves cancer by smoking without a prescription, why are we requiring that substances far less dangerous to their health and far less burdensome to society are only available by prescription? Inconsistency in our drug laws breeds a disrespect for our justice system.
Regarding your "humble" opinion ("most drug addicts commit crimes to support their drug habits"), have you considered why? People committed crimes to obtain alcohol when it was not legally available. If all drugs were legally available, why do you imagine that problems would be worse than those caused by alcohol, nicotine, junk food, etc?
Cheers,
Peter
Peter wrote: "Thank you for your kind comments about my presentation. Thank you also for establishing this forum for discussion of the issues that our presentations broach. I wonder how many read it? We encourage participation."
ReplyDeleteTHANKS! I plan to include a link to this conversation in the weekly Philosophy Club email I send to 300+ Villagers on Saturday or Sunday. I hope we get many to read along and some to add their own Comments.
Peter wrote: "1. Authorities should add poison to intercepted narcotics and put them back into circulation? Are you condoning government murder? Why not add poison to alcoholic beverages? Is that respect for life, in your view?" [Emphasis added]
My friend's idea (from over 50 years ago) to address the drug problem by poisoning supplies was not serious, and I only mentioned it because the drug dealers themselves are currently adding toxic amounts of fentanyl to their products, resulting in the deaths of their clientele. However, it turns out that your rhetorical suggestion for the government to "add poison to alcoholic beverages" was actually done!
Read about it on Snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-americans/
Direct quote from above Snopes link:
"To the question at hand: Did the federal government really add poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it?
It did, in fact. The government did purposely add poisonous substances to alcohol, and this did result in thousands of deaths during Prohibition. The story of how that came to pass is longer and more nuanced than the Internet meme suggests, however. And it began well before the passage of the 18th Amendment, which made Prohibition the law of the land."
Indeed, to this day, rubbing alcohol and industrial alcohol is "denatured" to discourage its use for oral consumption.
Direct quote from Snopes link:
"Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol ('wood alcohol') to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous."
NEVER-THE-LESS I DO NOT FAVOR HAVING OUR GOVERNMENT POISON THE ILLEGAL DRUG SUPPLY. (The drug dealers are doing that job for us :^(
(continued in subsequent Comment)
(continued)
ReplyDeletePeter wrote: "2. A person unintentionally overdoses, a common occurrence because the quality of substances and doses are unregulated. Just let them die? Why not let alcoholics who overdose die? Why not let smokers who get lung cancer die? Why not let obese people who suffer heart attacks die? Is that respect for life in your view? Many people saved from suicide respond, 'Why did you not let me die?'…" [Emphasis added]
The only good thing about lung cancer is that it cures smoking.
Currently, alcohol and foods are government regulated as to what you call "quality of substances and doses". Yet, as you also say, "alcoholics who overdose die … obese people who suffer heart attacks die". In both cases due to abuse of government-regulated substances!
Also, prescription opioid drugs are regulated as to doses and purity, and yet, as we saw during the recent opioid crisis, they are abused by over-prescription by licensed doctors and sold by licensed pharmacies, and, still, many people died! And, sadly, they continue to die as you cry for all drugs to be legal with government regulation.
As I wrote above, I do not favor the government poisoning illegal (or legal) drugs. However, those of us over 18 (or 21) are not children. If an otherwise mentally competent adult engages in risky behavior, taking illegal drugs, abusing legal drugs, drinking and driving, taking selfies at the edge of the Grand Canyon, or eating too much cream cheese and dying of obesity :^) I am not too concerned if they suffer the natural consequences of their voluntary behaviors.
We all have to go sometime, and I believe in Evolution and Natural Selection of both genes and memes that are most fit for human survival and reproduction of individuals and societies. As I said at the Philosophy Club meeting: "All humans bring joy to the World - Some by arriving and some by departing!"
Love, Ira
(continued in a subsequent Comment)
(continued)
ReplyDeletePeter wrote: "3. What I said was that our drug laws should be made consistent. If people can damage their bodies with alcohol without a prescription, and give themselves cancer by smoking without a prescription, why are we requiring that substances far less dangerous to their health and far less burdensome to society are only available by prescription? Inconsistency in our drug laws breeds a disrespect for our justice system."
I agree with you that some currently illegal drugs, such as marijuana, are no more dangerous than some currently legal drugs, such as alcohol. They should be made legal and regulated as to strength and taxed, similar to alcohol.
Note, however, that alcohol has been in our (European-based) social system for ages, and, to some extent, we have adapted social protections. For example, when I was a child, at Friday evening dinner with my grandparents, even the youngest child was given a shot glass with a few drops rye whiskey to burn their young tongues! We also were given a bit of (very sweet) wine at that special meal. As I got older and helped my Dad do carpentry projects and other physical labor, he would open a beer and give me half a glass with food when we were done. As a result, I associated alcohol with meals and in moderation. In college, when I went bowling with friends, I felt uncomfortable drinking beer unaccompanied by food, or in excess, so I always had a bag of chips and never had more than one drink. Similarly, as an adult on business trips with co-workers, I never drank without having food, and never more than one beer or one glass of wine.
At my Bar Mitzvah (confirmation) dinner we had an open bar and only one person got drunk. Similarly, at our wedding, and other family celebrations, it was highly unusual to see anyone drunk. At Freedom Pointe Independent Living where we live we have free Screwdrivers or Bloody-Mary drinks available at the Sunday Buffet, and free wine and beer available at monthly Celebration parties, with no ill effects.
I've never tried marijuana so I have no idea of its effect on me. Yet, my brother (in San Francisco) and other close relatives have used it, seemingly with no ill effects.
I'm not sure that harder drugs such as opioids should be made legal without prescription because we, at least in our current society, have not developed the social adaptations to reduce abuse. As we have seen, even with opioid prescriptions and government regulation, we have seen serious abuse and deaths.
Getting back to your most recent posting, Peter wrote: "Regarding your 'humble' opinion ('most drug addicts commit crimes to support their drug habits'), have you considered why? People committed crimes to obtain alcohol when it was not legally available. If all drugs were legally available, why do you imagine that problems would be worse than those caused by alcohol, nicotine, junk food, etc?"
Well, as we've seen, opioids ARE legally available, with a PRESCRIPTION, yet they have been and continue to be abused!
Do you really believe that removing the requirement for a doctor's prescription would reduce the abuse? Well, perhaps the price would go down a bit if you did not have to pay for a doctor's visit, and that might reduce the crimes addicts commit to get money to pay for their habits.
I do have a bit of a "Libertarian" streak that spices up my generally Conservative outlook, so, perhaps ALL medications that currently require a prescription should be available to any adult. Off course we would give the government responsibility to assure the purity of the medications, the truthfulness and adequacy of instructions and warnings, and taxation of sales.
I currently take prescription meds for my Parkinson's and Cholesterol. Neither of these drugs give me any kind of "high", so I doubt making them available without a doctor's prescription would lead to abuse.
Love, Ira
1. I presumed your comment was tongue in cheek, but when others took up the idea of withholding Narcan from a drug addict in respiratory arrest, I responded appropriately. The life of a person in distress ought not be treated dismissively, no matter what may be your opinion of drug addicts. I gather you do not approve of some inhumane government official having done so during Prohibition. I also hope you now share my empathy for addicts and do not find it "misplaced" any more than empathy for anyone with a serious brain illness. Do not confuse the transient acts of a person having a deranged mind with a value on their life and their potential.
ReplyDeleteDrug dealers are not intentionally poisoning the drug supply. That would be bad for business. They are mixing opiods for more potency. Less tolerant addicts, not knowing the effective dose they are taking, may overdose. Addiction means that their brains crave ever higher doses to feel pleasure. Many addicts are successfully treated with synthetic opioids to which they do not develop tolerance, and they are able to live productive lives. That is why I emphasized the involvement of an addiction-specialist physician in the treatment plan. The so-called 12-step plan run by non-physicians (usually involving former addicts, abstention from all drugs, and a religious component) has a much lower success rate.
2. Isn't it obvious that controlling the quality of a substance one puts into his body does not prevent abuse? The point is that knowing the dose can prevent harm. While I appreciate your gallows humor and penchant for tongue-in-cheek statements, I do not "cry for all drugs to be legal." I cry for consistency in our drug laws, a humane approach to treating all brain illnesses (not just Parkinsonism), and a reduction in resources misdirected toward enforcement, which entails the significant cost and damage of incarcerations and unnecessary loss of lives, not to mention a cash cow for organized crime. Either requiring all drugs (including alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine) to be available only via prescription or making all drugs available without a prescription would yield legal consistency.
When you say, "I am not too concerned if they suffer the natural consequences of their voluntary behaviors," one wonders if you generalize your indifference to those who suffer strokes and heart attacks engendered by eating habits that hike up their cholesterol? Presumable, smokers and coal miners who develop respiratory illnesses are also off your empathy list? And ought it matter to anyone else whether or not you are concerned?
3. After recounting your own experiences, you say, "I'm not sure that harder drugs such as opioids should be made legal without prescription because we, at least in our current society, have not developed the social adaptations to reduce abuse." Anecdotal experiences are not a reliable basis for general principles. The social adaptations related to alcohol use to which you refer are by no means universal. Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine abuse are common world-wide and lead to far more deaths than any of the controlled substances cause.
"Do you really believe that removing the requirement for a doctor's prescription would reduce the abuse?" No. I never claimed that. What I did explain in detail in my presentation is all the benefits that would accrue - legal consistency, economically, lives saved, etc. How did you miss that? Would you like a copy of my slides?
Cheers,
Peter
On May 11, Peter wrote (quoting me): "'Do you really believe that removing the requirement for a doctor's prescription would reduce the abuse?' No. I never claimed that. What I did explain in detail in my presentation is all the benefits that would accrue - legal consistency, economically, lives saved, etc. ..."
ReplyDeleteCONSISTENCY
You have harped on "consistency" in your great talk, in your online Comment I quoted above, and in your earlier Comment dated May 7 where you wrote: "What I said was that our drug laws should be made consistent. If people can damage their bodies with alcohol without a prescription, and give themselves cancer by smoking without a prescription, why are we requiring that substances far less dangerous to their health and far less burdensome to society are only available by prescription? Inconsistency in our drug laws breeds a disrespect for our justice system."
OK, some wise person (I forget who) said:
"FOOLISH CONSISTENCY IS THE HOBGOBLIN OF SMALL MINDS"
Of course we know that you (and I :^) do not have small minds. Yet, we sometime mistake what we believe is actually "consistent" when it is not.
For example, you wrote that "our drug laws should be made consistent". Your point is that drugs that are currently illegal, such as marijuana, meth, heroin, cocaine, and so on, should be treated CONSISTENT with alcohol.
Well, Beer and Wine (about 5% alcohol) are sold at supermarkets, while hard liquor (about 40% alcohol, 8 times as potent) is sold only at liquor stores! Different YES, but INCONSISTENT, NO! Our current alcohol laws are CONSISTENT with the different levels of danger posed by different drinks.
Legal opioid pain meds pose a different level of danger of abuse than legal alcohol. So, we require a doctor's prescription, etc. Again, CONSISTENT with levels of danger of abuse.
In a previous Comment I wrote that marijuana should be legal and regulated similar to alcohol, with a similar level of danger of abuse. Yet we know marijuana (THC) available today is far more potent than ever before. (THC up from 4% 20 years ago to 30% now).
So, perhaps, when legalized nationally, different strains of marijuana-THC need to be regulated differently, CONSISTENT with level of danger of abuse, CONSISTENT with how we regulate beer vs hard liquor.
CONSISTENT REGULATION OF ALL DRUGS
Before we "make all drugs legal" we've got to determine the different levels of danger of abuse of each type (meth, heroine, cocaine, different strains of marijuana-THC, crack cocaine, fentanyl, etc.) and regulate them CONSISTENT with how we regulate different types of alcohol and marijuana THC.
Legal drugs seem to me to be of two very different types, MIND-ALTERING (alcohol, marijuana, opioids, …) and NON-MIND-ALTERING (cholesterol, Parkinson's, … etc.)
MIND-ALTERING drugs, by definition, are designed to GIVE PLEASURE and REDUCE PAIN. In doing so, they tend to inhibit our CRITICAL-THINKING capabilities and, depending on the strength and dose, may make even the smartest and most mature of us become PHYSIOLOGICALLY DEPENDENT. Literally incapable of making logical decisions.
Of course, NON-MIND-ALTERING drugs may also cause bad health effects if used in excess, but, at least they do not take away our critical thinking abilities.
Love, Ira
(continued from previous Comment)
ReplyDeleteROLE OF LICENSED PHYSICIANS
In answer to a question at your Philo Club talk, you insisted that drug treatment must be provided by a licensed medical doctor, and not by unlicensed providers. In this online discussion, you caution against 12-step programs to treat drug abusers because many are conducted by non-licensed persons.
Yet, in answer to my question at your talk about making all drugs legal, you said prescriptions by licensed Medical Doctors should NOT be required for ANY drugs!
This seems, to me, to be highly INCONSISTENT!
You seem to favor making all drugs available for purchase by any adult without any Prescription from a licensed Medical Doctor. The only role for government regulation being purity and doses and labeling (instructions, warnings, claims of effectiveness in treating various conditions, safety, contra-indications, and so on), as well as taxation.
That seems to me to be inconsistent! Medical Doctors required for treatment of drug addicts, but not required for purchasing of any drugs, SPECIFICALLY NOT REQUIRED FOR MIND-ALTERING DRUGS that may deprive users of the ability to make rational decisions!
Love, Ira
A fascinating discussion gentlemen! However, I do take exception to Peter's accusation on May 11 at 3:08 pm that when Ira states that, "I am not too concerned if they suffer the natural consequences of their voluntary behaviors." it should also include 'smokers and coal miners who develop respiratory illness.' Peter, smoking is a voluntary habit and smokers are responsible for the consequences. However, coal mining is an occupation, and coal miners do not voluntarily destroy their lungs. Peter, by lumping together smokers and miners, you present a fallacious argument.
ReplyDeleteBest wishes from Mexico City,
Penny Thomas
Penny,
DeleteCoal miners choose their occupation to make money. They know the consequences. Smokers choose their form of pleasure. They know the consequences. What is fallacious? The real question is, why is Ira (and perhaps you) not concerned about fellow human beings suffering from an illness. If his criterion is awareness of the risks, there are many risky behaviors in which people engage - bungy jumping, skiing, riding motorcycles, etc. Would you withhold treatment for an untoward consequence of any of these choices? Note that overdoses can occur when the user is unaware of the dose of a substance he introduces to his body.
Best wishes,
Peter
Peter, your statement, 'coal miners choose their occupation to make money. They know the consequences.' assumes that said coal miners have the wherewithal to move away from a single-industry occupation and have access to knowledge about the dangers of mining. In most cases around the world, this isn't so.
DeleteAnd, you miss the point of my statement at Philosophy Club which was, 'Why waste valuable and scarce resources on users who refuse to give up the habit or seek help?'
Penny
Peter (and Penny):
DeleteI've been involved in another discussion via email with a friend who has different views on the usefulness of religion in modern Society. Neither of us are literal believers, but I know that EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME embraces MYTHICAL beliefs that cannot stand close logical examination. Why does Evolution and Natural selection WASTE so much of LIMITED RESURCES on such myths? I conclude there MUST be some competitive reason for a Society carrying the load of illogical myths, else a non-myth carrying Society would have arisen and out-competed Societies loaded by myths!
Which brings me to my resolution of the special sympathy I (and Penny) feel for the mine workers who are (basically forced) to earn their living in a polluted mine and then get lung cancer vs less sympathy for the people who voluntarily smoke cigarettes (for pleasure) and also get lung cancer.
Peter (an L-mind) sees a human suffering a serious disease and would give equal help to the miner and the smoker. I (and probably Penny) blame the smoker for his situation, and hesitate to spend scarce Societal resources on the Natural consequence of his voluntary action. The smoker got pleasure and paid for it with the pain of lung cancer. The miner got no pleasure working in the mine so we are more empathetic with his suffering from lung cancer!
Peter might say (correctly) that the smoker was basically forced to take up that habit due to his enhanced genetic tendency to seek pleasure, and enhanced memetic tendency due to peer pressure because his parents and friends smoked, the TV advts convinced all the cool guys smoked, etc., etc.)
All true and logical on both sides, BUT if you believe in Evolution and Natural Selection at BOTH the GENETIC (individual biology) AND MEMETIC (Societal) level, we need to discourage genes and memes that lead to voluntary risk-taking such as smoking and encourage genes and memes that lead to involuntary (i.e., necessary) risk-taking such as productive work. Given a choice between using limited resources for a smoker vs a miner, I'd help the miner!
For some background see https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/, written by David Sloan Wilson critiquing Richard Dawkins. Wilson is a "Group-selection/Multi-level selection" advocate and Dawkins is a strict "Selfish gene" selection advocate. I've read books by both and respect both of them. However, during the years I was studying for my PhD (that I got in my mid-50's!) Wilson was one of my favorite professors and I come down on his side in this controversy.
Penny: Hope all is well in Mexico City. I heard air pollution is in a bit of a crisis now. What is the story on that and has it affected your visit?
Love, Ira
Penny and Ira,
DeleteYes, I assume “coal miners have the wherewithal to move away from a single-industry occupation and have access to knowledge about the dangers of mining.” Contrary to Penny’s assumption otherwise, there is likely not a single current coal mine worker in the US who is unaware of black lung disease not to mention other mining risks for which they take precautions. The percentage unaware is even less than the percentage of those unaware of the health risks of smoking.
Penny’s claim, “In most cases around the world, this isn't so,” is likely fallacious but even if true is a red herring. We are talking about the use of resources in the US, not elsewhere.
Penny: "Why waste valuable and scarce resources on users who refuse to give up the habit or seek help?"
1. Why waste valuable resources on enforcing irrational drug laws and incarcerating for possession? Not only are the laws unjust, but they are also ineffective. I have suggested redirecting these resources more usefully. If we free up these resources, there would certainly be enough funds available to treat many diseases in addition to drug addiction.
2. It is at least as difficult to give up drug addiction as it is to learn a new profession or move one’s family to a new job location. The choice for personal safety is a significant, but not insurmountable, hurdle for both miners and drug abusers.
Penny’s assumption, explicitly stated by Ira, is false: “…mine workers who are (basically forced) to earn their living in a polluted mine.”
Miners recently interviewed on TV (on my mind when I spoke) expressed unwillingness to change jobs, feeling that mining was in their blood and the most rewarding job for which they were fit. They essentially “refuse to give up the habit or seek help.” Like drug addicts, they feel overwhelmed by the prospect of forsaking the familiar and rewarding.
Ira: “Peter (an L-mind) sees a human suffering a serious disease and would give equal help to the miner and the smoker. I (and probably Penny) blame the smoker for his situation, and hesitate to spend scarce Societal resources on the Natural consequence of his voluntary action. The smoker got pleasure and paid for it with the pain of lung cancer. The miner got no pleasure working in the mine so we are more empathetic with his suffering from lung cancer!”
Miners risk lung disease. Girder walkers in the construction industry risk falling. Each chooses a higher paying job over personal safety. Greed takes precedence over self-preservation. Drugs that reduce pain and stimulate the brain’s pleasure center risk addiction. Do you prize a motive of greed over pain relief or pleasure (relief from life’s stresses)? Yes, I would give aid to sufferers, whatever the source of their suffering. I do not think Society should be in the business of ranking sufferers other than by the severity of their need. I presume the L in “L-mind” refers to Logical. 😊
Cheers,
Peter
Dear Ira,
ReplyDeleteIn reply to your misperceptions of inconsistency:
“…we sometime mistake what we believe is actually "consistent" when it is not.”
True enough. In the cases you present, you have misperceived consistency when in fact there is inconsistency.
Case 1 – “Your point is that drugs that are currently illegal, such as marijuana, meth, heroin, cocaine, and so on, should be treated CONSISTENT with alcohol.
Well, Beer and Wine (about 5% alcohol) are sold at supermarkets, while hard liquor (about 40% alcohol, 8 times as potent) is sold only at liquor stores! Different YES, but INCONSISTENT, NO! Our current alcohol laws are CONSISTENT with the different levels of danger posed by different drinks.”
Alcohol is available without a prescription, while all scheduled drugs can only be obtained via prescription. I provided evidence to support my claim that alcohol poses a far greater danger than some, if not all, of the Schedule 1 drugs, not to mention the drugs in Schedules 2 to 5. That is the inconsistency I discussed. If you want to argue to the contrary, please provide your evidence.
One even hears the absurd beer advertisement, “Drink responsibly.” If one did that, one would avoid beer and drink substances that did not impair brain function or risk liver and cardiovascular damage. We should permit no advertisement that implicitly encourages people (especially those below drinking age who are exposed to such nonsense) to drink alcohol.
Case 2 – “Legal opioid pain meds pose a different level of danger of abuse than legal alcohol. So, we require a doctor's prescription, etc. Again, CONSISTENT with levels of danger of abuse.”
The risk of abuse is only one of the factors taken into account in assigning a drug to a Schedule. Another is risk to public health. Please provide data to support your claim that drugs in Schedules 3 to 5 pose a greater danger to public health or have a greater abuse potential than alcohol. How many deaths are associated with drugs in Schedules 3 to 5? I showed data on the many deaths associated with alcohol and cigarettes. Requiring a prescription to obtain these drugs but not requiring a prescription to obtain alcohol or cigarettes defies consistency. Note that Ritalin, a Schedule 5 drug, is even given to children with ADHD. (continued below)
Case 3 – “In answer to a question at your Philo Club talk, you insisted that drug treatment must be provided by a licensed medical doctor, and not by unlicensed providers. In this online discussion, you caution against 12-step programs to treat drug abusers because many are conducted by non-licensed persons.
ReplyDeleteYet, in answer to my question at your talk about making all drugs legal, you said prescriptions by licensed Medical Doctors should NOT be required for ANY drugs!
This seems, to me, to be highly INCONSISTENT!”
Doctors are trained and licensed to treat illnesses. Addiction is an illness. I counseled against treatment for addiction by unlicensed individuals, especially those who proscribe the use of medications and rely on religious beliefs. That was the point. If all drugs were available without a prescription, I would still counsel for addiction-specialized licensed physicians, since they best understand the actions of drugs, medications that might be used for treatment, and the mechanisms involved in the illness. Where do you perceive inconsistency here?
Case 4 – “You seem to favor making all drugs available for purchase by any adult without any Prescription from a licensed Medical Doctor. The only role for government regulation being purity and doses and labeling (instructions, warnings, claims of effectiveness in treating various conditions, safety, contra-indications, and so on), as well as taxation.
That seems to me to be inconsistent! Medical Doctors required for treatment of drug addicts, but not required for purchasing of any drugs, SPECIFICALLY NOT REQUIRED FOR MIND-ALTERING DRUGS that may deprive users of the ability to make rational decisions!”
I favor using drug enforcement money to educate the public about drug effects and to treat addicts. I favor legal consistency in our drug regulations. If harmful substances like alcohol and cigarettes are readily available to adults, then any substance less addictive and less harmful ought also to be readily available. The role of physicians would be to educate the public about the risks of substances. Procedurally, one might require physician approval (equivalent to a prescription) to obtain any mind-altering substance, including alcohol and cigarettes. The physician would be required to explain in full the risks posed by a substance before providing an adult with approval to obtain the substance. The quality and labeling of substances would be controlled. The informed individual could then obtain the substance ad lib, knowing the dose and consequences.
The entire province of drug use ought to be within the realm of medical practice rather than our judicial system. All procedural requirements ought to be consistent with the actual risk of harm that each substance poses.
The inscription over the entrance door to my high school read, “Knowledge is power.” :-)
Cheers,
Peter
Penny: Thanks for your comment above (May 14, 2019 at 1:41 PM). Yes, I agree with you that there is a basic difference between smokers and miners who get lung cancer. The smokers voluntarily choose to smoke while the miners were, in some respects, required to go into the mines to earn money to support their families.
ReplyDeletePeter: I'll let readers who followed our discussion above decode who is consistent and logical and who is not. Our disagreement seems to be one of an L-Mind ("Liberal") vs a C-Mind ("Conservative"). We start with different basic values and views of morality. Therefore it should not be a surprise that we come to different conclusions.
About ten years ago, some friends and I (including both L-Minds and C-Minds who like and respect each other) engaged in a substantive and collegial discussion about this issue. See https://tvpclub.blogspot.com/search?q=l%2Fc+mind
In particular, see Jonathan Haidt's wonderful TED talk about "The Five Channels of Morality" see https://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2008/11/ted-talks-five-channels-of-morality.html
Love, Ira
Ira: I replied to Penny above. Regarding our colloquy, I do not agree that our disagreement is politically based. It is reasoning based. But I do note that the current POTUS (a C-mind) distracts from the subject at hand when his claims are proven false. He does not recognize what a poor model he engenders.
DeleteCheers,
Peter
PS. Thanks for the references.
DeleteReplying to PMI May 27, 2019 at 9:55 AM
ReplyDeletePeter: I hope Penny replies as well, but here are my reactions.
1) Relative responsibility and risk knowledge/responsibility of miners and smokers who get lung cancer.
I simply do not believe your claim that
"Yes, I assume 'coal miners have the wherewithal to move away from a single-industry occupation and have access to knowledge about the dangers of mining.' Contrary to Penny’s assumption otherwise, there is likely not a single current coal mine worker in the US who is unaware of black lung disease not to mention other mining risks for which they take precautions. The percentage unaware is even less than the percentage of those unaware of the health risks of smoking."
That claim is certainly NOT true for most miners and smokers exposed decades ago. I know quitting smoking is tough, but my mother quit in the 1960's after decades of smoking, as did others. On the other hand, if your only skill and way of earning a paycheck was mining, and the only other jobs were uncertain, lower-paying, and far away from your hometown, it was (and is) hard to quit.
Also, mining is a positive contribution to society (i.e., Ira and Penny, and Peter benefited from the work product and taxes paid by the mining industry). NONE of us benefitted from living among smokers.
2) L-Mind means "Logical" :^)
Peter writes "Yes, I would give aid to sufferers, whatever the source of their suffering. I do not think Society should be in the business of ranking sufferers other than by the severity of their need. I presume the L in 'L-mind' refers to Logical."
Could be that the "L" in "L-mind" refers to LOONY.
I consider myself to be a CLASSICAL LIBERAL, following in the intellectual footsteps of John Locke, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and, ultimately, Adam Smith. Not the current crop of "social liberals" who are, at best, "Democratic Socialists" like Bernie Sanders, and, at most LOONY, like "AOC".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanisation and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism and progress.The term classical liberalism has often been applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism."
Love, Ira