More on Licensing the Right of Intoxication

A good friend of mine wrote this about my last post:

“At first glance, your idea makes sense. Upon further consideration, however, it falls apart.
In the same way concealed carry permits have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a license to use wouldn’t keep drugs out of the hands of unlicensed users.  Additionally, substances with high addiction potential: heroin, crack cocaine, cocaine, LSD should never be legalized or licensed, period.  The inherent risks and costs to minor children, unborn children, and society at large are simply too great. A licensed young adult uses cocaine. During a drug induced stupor, she has unprotected sex and becomes pregnant. Her license isn’t yet up for review, continues to use and becomes addicted. We now have an addicted mother and an addicted baby. It’s a horrible, downward spiral.”

She then goes on to make sound arguments (the same as found at so many places elsewhere on the net) in support of legalizing marijuana.

There are so many images related to weed out there, so I went with an oldie but a goodie.

Today’s post begins my response to some of her concerns with my proposal.  Before we begin, let me admit that my last post was thin.  But I’m trying to get back into the disciple of writing a blog.

Let me begin with the argument that a set of drugs should not be legalized under any circumstances.   This is a philosophical flaw in many pro-marijuana arguments.  Often advocates say, “look how harmful fill-in-the-blank is; it’s legal, but marijuana is less harmful to individuals and to society.”  Most often the blank is filled with “alcohol”, but I’ve seen “tobacco”, “caffeine”, and even “sugar”, “chocolate”,  or “processed foods” used.  And yes, those things have a measurable impact of individual and societal health.  And yes, caffeine and chocolate have health consequence as caffeine is highly addictive and in excess amounts both are damaging to health (although in moderate amounts both have some health benefit.)

Sugar is of the Devil!

By using the “less harm” argument, the proponents are advocating that we as a society collectively evaluate the harm caused by mind-altering substances and create a line below which substances are legal and across which substances are illegal.  But that line is, in truth, arbitrary, despite any attempts claim a rational basis.  Every mind-altering substance has some harm and thus the prohibitionists are justified in saying that all such substances should be banned.  But not every cigarette smoker gets cancer and not every meth user becomes a member of the living dead.

Nothing funny here. Just sadness. I've represented a number of meth addicts and it is heartbreaking how far down the road they've gone and incarceration won't cure them. The War on Drugs has failed them.

So when a marijuana proponent uses a harm comparison, they are, in a way, lending support to arguments that all psychoactive substances ought to be outlawed.  This is the position of the Mormon Church, the Straight Edge movement, and various other ascetic philosophies.

Under my proposed system of licensing, substances would rated by the harm to the individual’s health, the public and the applicant would be educated about relative harm, are applicants who wish to use harder drugs would be evaluated at higher standards than less harmful drugs.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext”%5DLet’s consider addictiveness.  All mind-altering substances are potentially addicting, either as a result of biological, genetic, or psychological mechanisms.  For instance, marijuana is mildly physically addictive, but can be quite psychologically addictive.  Cigarette are both physically and psychologically addictive, but there is a threshold of usage below which most people are safe from addiction.  According to the book Tipping Point, that threshold appears to be five cigarettes a day on average.  Also, only 23% of users become addicted to heroin compared to 32% for tobacco.   Philosophically, why should the 77% of heroin users who can handle their stuff be penalized for their more susceptible brethern’s problem?

Again, under my proposed system, substances would be rated by their addictive potential and applicants would be evaluated for their family history of addiction, as well as their own personal history and perhaps for their genetic potential for addiction.  Psychological and cognitive testing would be required as well.   Further, applicants would periodically be re-examined and re-evaluated, at a frequency commensurate with the type of license they seek.  A heroin license would probably need monthly check-up while a marijuana license would probably need only a yearly re-examination.  If a person shows signs of addiction or abuse, the supervising agency can limit or pull his or her license.

And get them in touch with this guy.

Let’s consider the effects of withdrawal.  Heroin withdrawal can kill.  But so can the delirium tremens of alcohol withdrawal.  Tobacco is notoriously difficult to quit and caffeine withdrawal can lead to debilitating migraine-like headaches.  Marijuana has such a mild withdrawal that it’s barely even noticed by most users.  Still, withdrawal can be a medical emergency.

Under my proposal, once again substances would be rated by the danger of withdrawal or cessation of use.  If a person has their license pulled or limited, or if they voluntarily give up their license, then the supervising agency would have the resources to help them withdraw of step-down safely.  What is now an underground situation would be treated as a medical issue rather than one of criminality.

Not a safe place to withdraw.

More to come….