I voted (with strong reservations) to legalize it, but only on the basis that we should take action against the antisocial behaviour, rather than the act of taking the drug itself. So legalization should go hand-in-hand with stiff sentences for driving under the influence and being responsible for children while under the influence, and encouraging employers to test and sack people who are under the influence during work hours. As it can stay in the blood for weeks, that would make recreational weekend smoking a risky venture.
Mind you, the availability of test-cheating products, such as powdered virgin-urine (I kid you not), may make enforcement tricky. If it were too unreliable, I would change my vote to reclassify as Class B.
That would leave the losers who spend their lives smoking dope on the dole as the main consumers. Changes to the benefit system, as discussed in other posts, should make that a less attractive and affordable prospect. And for the minority who choose to remain dope-heads in those circumstances, it's probably best that they spend their pointless lives in a soporific haze, than in a more alert and aggressive frame of mind.
As for the mental-health implications, and many other aspects of this debate, Tim Worstall provides a great deal of useful insight. We need a mental-health system that gives more respect to the concerns of family and friends of the person whose mental health is deteriorating, and does not wait until absent state-employees judge there is a problem (always too late), or until the person has committed an offence.
In short, teach people about the risks, enforce harsh consequences if they do not behave responsibly, and then leave it upto the individual.
Permalink Submitted by JG on Mon, 23/07/2007 - 14:06
Given my views on the smoking ban - i.e. it is up to the individual to decide if they want to harm themselves or not, it may seem strange that I voted to keep it a class C drug. Ideally I would like to see it legalised from a personal freedom point of view, but I strongly believe the damage it can do to an individual leaves a government irresponsible to allow it to be legalised. The mental health implications are such that we are not equipped with an NHS that can help those affected nor can it take the strain financially from the inevitable increase in use.
I have not voted for it to go back to a class B because I think it is yet a further waste of parliament's time and taxpayers' money getting the change through.
It is a very difficult one however. Not least, by making drugs illegal you are creating a violent criminal under world and ironically may well be making drugs more available to children than if they were controlled. Also, by legalising drugs in to a controlled environment, there is less chance of dangerous impurities getting in to them.
I certainly would not support drugs tests being carried out by employers for a drug that would have been taken legally. The routine of weekly drugs tests would be like living in Well's big brother state. Given how often these tests are messed up in sport, and the scope for manipulating tests by taken more drugs to mask the tests just creates a whole set of problems. The black market for masking agents would simply become the commodity of choice for the otherwise out of business drug dealers.
If the taking of drugs is that much of a strain on an employee that it affects his or her’s work, surely that will become clear to the employer? If it is not affecting his or her's work and they are only found out through drug testing, then you will effectively be sacking someone for doing something legal that was not affecting their work. It just does not seem workable or fair to me.
It is on purely medical grounds I would not allow the drug to be legalised.I would also not like to be the PM who introduced the legalisation of cannabis or any other currently illicit drugs and so I would not expect anyone else to have to take that position.
See Tim's site for the statistics on mental-health impacts. I felt much the same as you, but I can't justify banning a substance on the basis that, from a user-base of several million, some 500 (or even 1000) suffer psychotic episodes thanks to irresponsible use. We'd be banning a lot of things on that basis. If we should ban things on the basis of "the damage it can do to an individual", we should ban rugby immediately. It is harm to others which requires the intervention of government, not harm to ourselves.
Being drunk at work is (or should be) a sackable offence - presumably Gross Misconduct in most companies' Terms of Employment. The same goes for being stoned, whether pot is legal or illegal. You'd have a hard time at Employment Tribunal if you couldn't prove the allegation, so testing must be necessary in certain circumstances. I am not suggesting mandatory weekly testing. I am suggesting that it be done as appropriate, possibly randomly and when behaviour suggests it may be necessary. In the case of airline pilots and operators of nuclear plant, it may be quite frequent. In the case of people in the creative industries, probably less so.
There should be no Orwellian state-intrusion issues with an employer determining the terms of employment. It is up to employees whether to accept the job, given the terms. An employer is liable for the actions of his employees, and therefore ought to do whatever is necessary to satisfy himself that they are in a fit state to carry out their responsibilities. It may be too late by the time they have shown clear signs that they are not.
It's an unusual suggestion that the problem with drugs and work is that the strain of taking them may affect employees' work. Direct effects on concentration, coordination and motivation are the more obvious problems. Those can be serious problems in a lot of jobs.
I agree with your final point, though. Drug-legalization belongs, I suspect, in the same category as charging for healthcare - something I support in principle, but wouldn't propose if I were running for office in the near future. As this site exists to promote and exchange ideas, I think it is appropriate to set out the principled position, rather than the political position. If I were having to deal with the politics of this or healthcare, I would try to decontaminate a personal position that clashed with the majority by promising a free vote, or (better still) a referendum before any action was taken on the issue, to give the majority security that their views would not be overridden. Of course, following Labour's disgraceful behaviour over the EU Constitutional Treaty, this is not as effective a reassurance as it once was, but one would hope that people would believe that not everyone is as calculating and dishonourable as Blair and Brown.
Permalink Submitted by JG on Mon, 23/07/2007 - 21:06
I take your point completely, which is why I could not equate it with my stance on the smoking ban or many other areas of our freedoms. However, I suspect that the full implications of the psychotic effects are not yet known - partly because the use of the drug at the moment is not as wide or as studied as it might be if it were legal. There is a lot of evidence and counter evidence saying that the drug is safe or that it is very dangerous. My principled position does indeed tell me that it should be legalised, but I would not vote for it to be legalised if there were a referendum.
Being drunk at work should indeed be a sackable offense, but cannabis is a very different drug. Even if it is in your blood for up to 4 weeks, it will not impair your ability to carry out work for that period of time. How can you drug test on that basis? - it is a lawyer's dream. If the drug is legal and you fail a test and are fired but you haven't smoked the drug for over a week where do you stand? Or suppose you were with a friend who smoked the drug near you and you passively smoked it - there maybe no way of proving this - would the "passively smoked" defence be valid? At present, drug testing is legitimate in the work place, I feel that it would not be in a legalised environment.
As I am very much opposed to referenda for reasons best discussed in another thread, I do not see a referendum as a satisfactory solution (though in the case of the EU I think we should have one as it is about sovereignty and who makes my political decisions). However I am aware and very much in two minds because this position does not sit well with a classical liberal view. It a very difficult issue for someone who supports the principle of the individual's right to choose.
On testing: THC concentrations in your blood decay exponentially, so whilst it may be traceable for weeks, it should quickly fall below a legal limit, if a reasonable limit were defined. If you got stoned out of your head, and your concentrations remained high, just like if you got hammered on alcohol and you remained above the legal limit the next morning, your abilities would still be impaired, and you ought rightly to be held to account for carrying out any acts of responsibility in that condition. I am not aware that you could get so stoned from passive smoking that you would still show high levels of THC concentrations one or two days later. But ultimately, if this is the result of being in a room with a bunch of pot-heads all weekend, you need to take responsibility for that choice, the same as if you smoked the stuff.
Liberalism isn't libertinism - it is about personal responsibility as well as personal freedom. I reckon if one applied reasonable standards of personal responsibility to the smoking of dope (legalized or not), the circumstances in which it is practical to partake without consequences would be pretty limited. It may sound unreasonable if your objective is to allow people freedom to do what they want, but as Hayek demonstrated in The Constitution of Liberty, that is not the appropriate sense of liberty for definitions of liberalism.
You may be right about the practical obstacles to testing, though, in which case I would change my vote to reclassification as Class B.
On referenda: I don't like them any more than you. I only suggested it as a way that a politician can take the sting out of holding a different view to the majority. It would be a miracle if all politicians agreed with the majority of their voters on all matters. Mostly, where their views would not be well-received by the electorate, they obfuscate or dissemble. I am suggesting that it's better to be honest while respecting the rights of the majority, than to try to pull the wool over the electorates' eyes. But if you are open about your controversial views, you need to find a way to reassure people that you would not impose your minority view on them. A promise of a referendum prior to any action should serve that purpose well. You would offer it in the knowledge that you would not even attempt to enact legislation, and therefore call the referendum, unless public opinion had changed substantially (unless you are Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, in which case you would see yourself as above such trivia as honour).
What referenda are lousy for, as I think we both agree, is deciding the right approach to any particular policy. I am with Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Mill and O'Rourke (PJ would like being listed in that company) on the merits of determining everything according to the will of the majority. I am not proposing that policy on drugs be decided by referendum.
Comments
I voted (with strong
I voted (with strong reservations) to legalize it, but only on the basis that we should take action against the antisocial behaviour, rather than the act of taking the drug itself. So legalization should go hand-in-hand with stiff sentences for driving under the influence and being responsible for children while under the influence, and encouraging employers to test and sack people who are under the influence during work hours. As it can stay in the blood for weeks, that would make recreational weekend smoking a risky venture.
Mind you, the availability of test-cheating products, such as powdered virgin-urine (I kid you not), may make enforcement tricky. If it were too unreliable, I would change my vote to reclassify as Class B.
That would leave the losers who spend their lives smoking dope on the dole as the main consumers. Changes to the benefit system, as discussed in other posts, should make that a less attractive and affordable prospect. And for the minority who choose to remain dope-heads in those circumstances, it's probably best that they spend their pointless lives in a soporific haze, than in a more alert and aggressive frame of mind.
As for the mental-health implications, and many other aspects of this debate, Tim Worstall provides a great deal of useful insight. We need a mental-health system that gives more respect to the concerns of family and friends of the person whose mental health is deteriorating, and does not wait until absent state-employees judge there is a problem (always too late), or until the person has committed an offence.
In short, teach people about the risks, enforce harsh consequences if they do not behave responsibly, and then leave it upto the individual.
Class C
Given my views on the smoking ban - i.e. it is up to the individual to decide if they want to harm themselves or not, it may seem strange that I voted to keep it a class C drug. Ideally I would like to see it legalised from a personal freedom point of view, but I strongly believe the damage it can do to an individual leaves a government irresponsible to allow it to be legalised. The mental health implications are such that we are not equipped with an NHS that can help those affected nor can it take the strain financially from the inevitable increase in use.
I have not voted for it to go back to a class B because I think it is yet a further waste of parliament's time and taxpayers' money getting the change through.
It is a very difficult one however. Not least, by making drugs illegal you are creating a violent criminal under world and ironically may well be making drugs more available to children than if they were controlled. Also, by legalising drugs in to a controlled environment, there is less chance of dangerous impurities getting in to them.
I certainly would not support drugs tests being carried out by employers for a drug that would have been taken legally. The routine of weekly drugs tests would be like living in Well's big brother state. Given how often these tests are messed up in sport, and the scope for manipulating tests by taken more drugs to mask the tests just creates a whole set of problems. The black market for masking agents would simply become the commodity of choice for the otherwise out of business drug dealers.
If the taking of drugs is that much of a strain on an employee that it affects his or her’s work, surely that will become clear to the employer? If it is not affecting his or her's work and they are only found out through drug testing, then you will effectively be sacking someone for doing something legal that was not affecting their work. It just does not seem workable or fair to me.
It is on purely medical grounds I would not allow the drug to be legalised. I would also not like to be the PM who introduced the legalisation of cannabis or any other currently illicit drugs and so I would not expect anyone else to have to take that position.
Mental health, work and politics
See Tim's site for the statistics on mental-health impacts. I felt much the same as you, but I can't justify banning a substance on the basis that, from a user-base of several million, some 500 (or even 1000) suffer psychotic episodes thanks to irresponsible use. We'd be banning a lot of things on that basis. If we should ban things on the basis of "the damage it can do to an individual", we should ban rugby immediately. It is harm to others which requires the intervention of government, not harm to ourselves.
Being drunk at work is (or should be) a sackable offence - presumably Gross Misconduct in most companies' Terms of Employment. The same goes for being stoned, whether pot is legal or illegal. You'd have a hard time at Employment Tribunal if you couldn't prove the allegation, so testing must be necessary in certain circumstances. I am not suggesting mandatory weekly testing. I am suggesting that it be done as appropriate, possibly randomly and when behaviour suggests it may be necessary. In the case of airline pilots and operators of nuclear plant, it may be quite frequent. In the case of people in the creative industries, probably less so.
There should be no Orwellian state-intrusion issues with an employer determining the terms of employment. It is up to employees whether to accept the job, given the terms. An employer is liable for the actions of his employees, and therefore ought to do whatever is necessary to satisfy himself that they are in a fit state to carry out their responsibilities. It may be too late by the time they have shown clear signs that they are not.
It's an unusual suggestion that the problem with drugs and work is that the strain of taking them may affect employees' work. Direct effects on concentration, coordination and motivation are the more obvious problems. Those can be serious problems in a lot of jobs.
I agree with your final point, though. Drug-legalization belongs, I suspect, in the same category as charging for healthcare - something I support in principle, but wouldn't propose if I were running for office in the near future. As this site exists to promote and exchange ideas, I think it is appropriate to set out the principled position, rather than the political position. If I were having to deal with the politics of this or healthcare, I would try to decontaminate a personal position that clashed with the majority by promising a free vote, or (better still) a referendum before any action was taken on the issue, to give the majority security that their views would not be overridden. Of course, following Labour's disgraceful behaviour over the EU Constitutional Treaty, this is not as effective a reassurance as it once was, but one would hope that people would believe that not everyone is as calculating and dishonourable as Blair and Brown.
I take your point
I take your point completely, which is why I could not equate it with my stance on the smoking ban or many other areas of our freedoms. However, I suspect that the full implications of the psychotic effects are not yet known - partly because the use of the drug at the moment is not as wide or as studied as it might be if it were legal. There is a lot of evidence and counter evidence saying that the drug is safe or that it is very dangerous. My principled position does indeed tell me that it should be legalised, but I would not vote for it to be legalised if there were a referendum.
Being drunk at work should indeed be a sackable offense, but cannabis is a very different drug. Even if it is in your blood for up to 4 weeks, it will not impair your ability to carry out work for that period of time. How can you drug test on that basis? - it is a lawyer's dream. If the drug is legal and you fail a test and are fired but you haven't smoked the drug for over a week where do you stand? Or suppose you were with a friend who smoked the drug near you and you passively smoked it - there maybe no way of proving this - would the "passively smoked" defence be valid? At present, drug testing is legitimate in the work place, I feel that it would not be in a legalised environment.
As I am very much opposed to referenda for reasons best discussed in another thread, I do not see a referendum as a satisfactory solution (though in the case of the EU I think we should have one as it is about sovereignty and who makes my political decisions). However I am aware and very much in two minds because this position does not sit well with a classical liberal view. It a very difficult issue for someone who supports the principle of the individual's right to choose.
Testing and referenda
On testing: THC concentrations in your blood decay exponentially, so whilst it may be traceable for weeks, it should quickly fall below a legal limit, if a reasonable limit were defined. If you got stoned out of your head, and your concentrations remained high, just like if you got hammered on alcohol and you remained above the legal limit the next morning, your abilities would still be impaired, and you ought rightly to be held to account for carrying out any acts of responsibility in that condition. I am not aware that you could get so stoned from passive smoking that you would still show high levels of THC concentrations one or two days later. But ultimately, if this is the result of being in a room with a bunch of pot-heads all weekend, you need to take responsibility for that choice, the same as if you smoked the stuff.
Liberalism isn't libertinism - it is about personal responsibility as well as personal freedom. I reckon if one applied reasonable standards of personal responsibility to the smoking of dope (legalized or not), the circumstances in which it is practical to partake without consequences would be pretty limited. It may sound unreasonable if your objective is to allow people freedom to do what they want, but as Hayek demonstrated in The Constitution of Liberty, that is not the appropriate sense of liberty for definitions of liberalism.
You may be right about the practical obstacles to testing, though, in which case I would change my vote to reclassification as Class B.
On referenda: I don't like them any more than you. I only suggested it as a way that a politician can take the sting out of holding a different view to the majority. It would be a miracle if all politicians agreed with the majority of their voters on all matters. Mostly, where their views would not be well-received by the electorate, they obfuscate or dissemble. I am suggesting that it's better to be honest while respecting the rights of the majority, than to try to pull the wool over the electorates' eyes. But if you are open about your controversial views, you need to find a way to reassure people that you would not impose your minority view on them. A promise of a referendum prior to any action should serve that purpose well. You would offer it in the knowledge that you would not even attempt to enact legislation, and therefore call the referendum, unless public opinion had changed substantially (unless you are Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, in which case you would see yourself as above such trivia as honour).
What referenda are lousy for, as I think we both agree, is deciding the right approach to any particular policy. I am with Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Mill and O'Rourke (PJ would like being listed in that company) on the merits of determining everything according to the will of the majority. I am not proposing that policy on drugs be decided by referendum.