 |
Search this site |
 this page last updated 13 May 2009 All Rights Reserved Text: World Copyright GWBAA Copyright of pictures acknowledged where possible |
Some recreational drugs, however, cause harm when taken to excess. These include heroin derivatives and nicotine (a component of tobacco), which are both addictive and highly damaging to our health. It is not only the user's health which is harmed in such circumstances. Addicts whose behaviour is driven by the need to get their next drug can neglect family and friends and steal from them or from strangers to get the money they need. Ultimately addiction can lead to a total breakdown in an individual's life and even death. 6.11c Society's response Society's rationale for banning recreational drugs is to reduce harm - a moral and praiseworthy motive. However, both the motive and the mechanism fall apart when examined closely. The motive - to promote welfare and reduce harm. Making some drugs illegal restricts access for those who would be harmed by them. But it also restricts access for those who can control their use. In other words, the welfare of some (those who can control drug use) is restricted by laws intended to protect the welfare of others (those who cannot control it). The mechanism - use of the law. In most countries, some relatively harmless drugs (eg ecstasy) are illegal while very harmful drugs (eg nicotine and alcohol) are legal. Yet neither legality nor illegality has a major impact on drug use. 6.11d A rational - and moral - approach What is the most moral approach to recreational drugs? Firstly, we should recognise that it is not the use but abuse of recreational drugs that leads to harm. Whether or not drugs are legal, help should be offered to those who are harmed by drugs. That includes both those who take drugs and those affected by their actions, such as their families and the victims of crimes prompted by addiction. Secondly, we should recognise that making a substance illegal - like making abortion illegal - does not make it inaccessible. The fact that cocaine is illegal has little impact on cocaine use, nor does it reduce harm. The opposite appears to be true. In Mexico the murder rate rockets as gangs fight for control of the drug trade and in Afghanistan the Taliban make a profit from the illegality of opium[source] - ironically after eradicating poppy production from in 2000. We must therefore adopt an approach which both allows access to drugs for those who benefit from them and helps those directly or indirectly harmed by them. The only rational - and moral - approach is legalisation of all drugs. This would (a) remove the drug trade from the hands of criminals, (b) reduce the impact of violence in areas controlled by drug gangs, (c) reduce the number of individuals imprisoned for victimless crimes (ie where no others were affected by their drug-taking), (d) increase the tax base for governments and (e) allow effective regulation of drugs to ensure they were of good quality, only sold through licensed outlets and only to adults. 6.11e Don't hold your breath Recreational drugs offer us pleasure. If our moral code promotes wellbeing and happiness, it must recognise that substances such as caffeine, ecstasy and marijuana achieve that goal on a temporary basis. Addiction to or continual use of these or any drug is not a good idea - but individuals should have the freedom and responsibility to determine which substances to take and how often they do so without harming themselves or others. Governments should guarantee that freedom and responsibility - but the reality is that we are unlikely to see any changes in the law soon. Next: Chapter Six: Section 12 Do good ... 
Custom Search
Email us, pasting the URL into your letter with the comment This account is protected by Spamarrest. You will receive a one-off request to verify your email before it is delivered. |
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist. What is the difference between science and faith? science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything faith is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing Which do you trust? "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God" ??? Check the answer |
|
Supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for The Atheist God. Clicking on advertiser links may allow these companies to gather and use information about your visit to this and other websites to provide you with advertisements about goods and services presumed to be of interest to you. |