first posted 990620
last updated 990620
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: A Working Definition of "Prohibitionist"
From: hcunn@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 01:17:32 GMT
Like many libertarians and their fellow-travelers, I use the word "prohibitionist" as a term of abuse, as in "Gun Prohibitionist," "Drug Prohibitionist," or "Alcohol Prohibitionist." In each case, prohibition creates more problems than it solves.
But where does one draw the line? Would one sneer at an "H-bomb prohibitionist" for outlawing backyard H-bombs?
As a draft, I offer the following--
"Prohibitionist" --
1. (public impact) someone who would respond to a minority's misuse of a product or right by denying that product or right to the majority who use it responsibly.
2. (private impact) someone who would employ the coercive power of the government against private, non-criminal behavior. (Behavior can be "criminal" only if it harms or unreasonably endangers another person without that person's informed consent.)
Comments--
Alcohol-- Highly destructive to 10% of users, mildly beneficial (1/2 glass of wine a day reduces heart attacks) to the other 90%. Pleasurable. An Alcohol Prohibitionist would meet both definition #1 and #2.
Marijuana-- Similar to alcohol, except that destructive effects to minority are far milder. Medical benefits accrue only to small number of users. Pleasurable. A marijuana prohibitionist would meet both definition #1 and #2.
Heroin-- Benefits to majority of users are questionable. A heroin Prohibitionist would only meet definition #2.
Guns-- highly destructive to public in hands of criminal minority. Beneficial to public in hands of honest majority, discouraging home invasions, assaults on women, and massacres. Pleasurable to some hunters. A Gun Prohibitionist would only meet definition #1.
Backyard H-bombs-- highly destructive to public in criminal hands. There is no private "responsible use" that could not be met far more safely by guns. Neither definition #1 nor #2 would apply to opponents of private possession.
[...]
Not ragging, just poking.
--N_J
========
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: A Working Definition of "Prohibitionist"
From: hcunn@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 19:07:23 GMT
You raise valid objections. My terminology and discussion of the examples was arbitrary and oversimplified.
When talking about "misuse" and "responsible use", I had in mind impact on society (eg with gun ownership). But, you are right -- according to the dictionary, one can refer to "responsible" use of a recreational option that has no effect on others, only on oneself.
Heroin-- Even it has legitimate uses as a painkiller, especially in some cancer cases. And many of the same prohibitionists who fiercely prosecute doctors inclined to prescribe it (and other effective pain-killers) are among those most self-righteously opposed to physician-assisted suicide for those with intractable pain.
I confess I don't know the details about heroin's effect on most users, whether there is a "slippery slope" of addiction leading inexorably to larger doses and physiological harm, or whether, in a maintenance environment, its effects are stabilized and the user can have a perfectly happy and productive life.
Tobacco-- Yes, it is often used "responsibly" to raise work productivity. For example, a friend of mine was a naval officer. Whenever he went to sea, with the usual schedule that only allows about 3 hours of sleep per day, he would take up smoking as the best way to avoid falling asleep at the job. Whenever his tour of sea duty ended, however, he would quit when he came home to his family, all non-smokers.
I would not use the word "responsible" for actuaries who would balance US "Social Security" pension accounts by encouraging more smoking, but others might legitimately tax me with overly squeamish "political correctness."
--Hugo S. Cunningham
========
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: A Working Definition of "Prohibitionist"
From: raphael@pobox.com (Glen Raphael)
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 01:49:37 -0700
When heroin was legal there were a great many responsible heroin addicts. One of the founders of Johns Hopkins was a heroin addict - he used it in pill form - and the addiction seems to have had no effect on his ability to be a productive member of society; even his wife never noticed. Heroin is an extremely potent cough suppressant and also an extremely potent pain reliever. The name "Heroin" was originally the brand name under which it was marketed as a cough suppressant by the Bayer corporation.
The chief negative effect of long-term heroin use is constipation. It's actually a very safe drug if you can get a regular supply and take it in pill form, which is what addicts and responsible users would be likely to do if it were cheap and legal. The health dangers of being a heroin addict today are almost entirely caused by the drug's legal status. These are dangers associated with shooting up, with not knowing the purity of the drug, with not having access to clean needles, and with not having consistent access to the drug.
My sources for all of the above are: (1) _Licit and Illicit Drugs_ by the editors of Consumer Reports, and (2) the Encyclopedia Britannica.
--Glen Raphael
Liberals and Libertarians: http://www.impel.com/liblib/
Return to HSC home page