Notes on an argument against criminalisation
Notes on an argument against criminalisation
What is the philosophical position of the TGA? Are they swayed by rational argument or only raw power? Determining these answers will provide direction in our way forward.
How to combat the position that any drug other than the legal 3 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Pharmaceuticals) should be criminalised? Well that depends on what underlies that position.
"If it's not broken don't fix it" conservatism - respond with 'but it is broken'
"Drugs are dangerous" So are the ones you can buy
"New drugs have unknown potential" - This isn't true as things like saliva are not 'new', so anecdotal data on long term effects is available at least. In any case 'old' drugs esp alcohol have known dangers. How do you weigh an unknown danger vs a known one? It is analytically (in philosophically at least) questionable at best.
"If as many people took new drug A as take old& legal drug B the sky would fall" - respond by calling them out on the basis for this. If everyone smoked SD instead of getting on the piss, then mayhem could ensue, except, if this scenario did come to pass, the situation would be necessarily different to the one we find ourselves in. In any case, what would they base this inference on? Where is the proof? This may be a convenient time to suggest a conspiracy.
"Hallucinogens are inherently bad" - Tricky. Construct parallel arguments showing all intoxicants are inherently bad and then perform reducto ad absurdum. Alternativelty argue that nothing is inherently bad and that any claim that hallucinogens are inherently bad is irrational. Denounces them in the media where you can.
0 Comments
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.