In "New Zealand bans synthetic cannabis products", Phil Mercer reports that although users and suppliers expect it be broken, the New Zealand government has recently made a law banning the sale and use of artificial marijuana products, which could previously be legally sold in New Zealand (2011). The New Zealand government is very clear that it is banning the sale and use of these synthetic cannabinoids, drugs that are similar to the active ingredient in marijuana or hemp, because they are unhealthy. As Peter Dunne, New Zealand's associate minister for health, says, the legislation, which is for one year only, pending more permanent and comprehensive changes, covers "any psycho-active substance where there is a risk, or a perceived risk or an apparent risk to, if you like, human safety" (¶ 11).
When I saw the title, I expected the sort of official nonsense that Mercer reports. I don't think that anyone seriously doubts that using drugs, such as wine, heroin, champagne, marijuana, cigarettes, yaa baa and so on, is seriously unhealthy, and generally causes a lot of personal and social problems, especially alcohol, which is typically involved not only in high traffic fatality rates, but crimes of violence such as spouse and child abuse, and fights between drunken men and women. I am sure we can all agree that drugs really are unhealthy - all drugs. I guess that most people would also agree that drugs, all drugs, cause social problems - mothers who are addicted to champagne are probably not looking after their children as well as they should be.
Having admitted that drugs are unhealthy, what follows? In particular, is being unhealthy a good reason to ban something? Obviously, a lot of people think the answer is "Yes", and politicians respond to this popular demand. But is the popular answer really "Yes"?
I don't think so. If the question were: Should drugs be banned because they are unhealthy? The unthinking and irrational majority says "Yes". But when the question is: Should unhealthy things be banned? The answer is "No." And these contradictory answers raise serious questions about the moral reasoning and critical thinking ability of the majority of people who answer in this inconsistent way.
First, people almost never want things banned because they are unhealthy - Big Macs are unhealthy, but I don't see any majority of voters or their politicians passing laws to ban McDonalds. Excess sugar is unhealthy, but the sweet, sugary birthday cakes are still legal and no one has called for mothers making such cakes to be thrown into prison for risking the health of their children. The delicious khao kha mu (ข้าวขาหมู) sold on the streets of Bangkok is likely very unhealthy (all that tasty pork fat can't be healthy), but again, its sale and use is perfectly legal, with no one calling for the buyers to be imprisoned for six months and sellers executed for endangering the lives of human beings and harming society by causing obesity and a set of related health problems which lower productivity, and increase national medical costs.
So the idea that being unhealthy is a sufficient reason to ban something is really just a lie that people use to justify banning drugs - they don't really believe that at all. And that leads to the important questions: What is the real reason for banning drugs? Is there any good reason, one that is not both irrational and immoral? (I don't think using lies as an excuse to interfere in people's lives is moral).
__________
References
When I sat down to have a late morning coffee, I wanted to write a shorter response writing than the one I wrote yesterday.
ReplyDeleteI succeeded with the first two parts: my introduction is only two sentences, and the summary or the BBC News article is four sentences.
But I got a bit carried away with my response. If this were an academic writing exercise, it would be much shorter because I would have planned the argument before I started writing, here, it sort of developed as I went along, one idea leading to teh next until I decided I'd made my point.
I sat down at my computer at 10:10 Am, and clicked the "Publish Post" button at 10:48.
I agree with your idea about banning drugs exactly for what??!
ReplyDeleteI think if governments really concern about their population's health, why don't they ban everything likes pastries with high-Carb and Trans-Fat that can also lead people to death.
Plus! If they truly care about drug possession, why they have to ban but why they don't erase them from our societies.. So no producers, no consumers, then many people of course will have better health!!
If government do not care population's health, why they still banning drugs?
ReplyDeleteI think that governments ban drugs, although not all governments do this, for several reasons:
ReplyDelete1. it enables corruption so that police, officials, judges, politicians and others can make a lot of money from bribes, (this is main reason for all criminal laws where there is no victim, and there are no victims when Amy is at home alone or with friends drinking wine, smoking marijuana or shooting heroin).
2. they honestly, but mistakenly, think it helps their citizens, (I don't really believe this - I don't think they could be that silly and unaware of some obvious facts, but it is possible.)
3. they just like to control other people and interfere in their lives,
4. but the main reason is that it's popular with voters. Even such evils as Thaksin's drug was a few years ago was popular with Thai voters, and George Bush's "War on Drugs" (where Thaksin got his idea), were popular, even though they did not solve or help the US drug problem. Why do so many people think drugs should be illegal? Because they are bad, and irresponsible parents. They worry about their children, but they want someone else to do all the parenting work for them. They refuse to accept any responsibility for the character and maturity of their own children, but want the government to punish everyone to force their own children to "be good". And in the process, they turn their own children into criminals, they harm their own children by supporting deadly laws that violate human rights, and they greatly harm society by imposing enormous wastes of money on programs that do not work and lead to increased corruption, crime, ill health and other evils - that is not being a good parent, it is not being a responsible citizen, and it is not sensible.
But if you think I'm wrong, please present your arguments and evidence. I've left out a lot of supporting facts here because I'm having my morning coffee and writing quickly to respond to Gloria's question, but I think the facts do support me. If you think not, let us know.
Is there any other reason that governments ban drugs in most countries?
What about governments that do not ban drugs? Why are some governments now making that decision?