Kiwi Polemicist

September 12, 2008

• The pointless death of an undercover policeman

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Yesterday an undercover police officer on a drugs case was murdered in Mangere, and the saddest thing about this is that it is an utterly pointless death, suffered in the enforcement of an utterly pointless law. Allow me to explain.

Drugs and alcohol are essentially the same thing, i.e. both are psychoactive substances (something that affects the mind). It is illogical and hypocritical for the government to make one psychoactive substance legal – alcohol – and outlaw other psychoactive substances – drugs. Why don’t they also make other psychoactive substances  illegal while they’re at it? There’s coffee, tea, cigarettes, cheese, cola drinks, and others; turkey has a small psychoactive effect. Why are psychoactive pills like antidepressants and sedatives legal when “recreational” drugs are illegal? There is no rational defence for arbitrarily making certain drugs illegal.

Arbitrarily making certain drugs illegal also harms society, just as the US Prohibition did. Making something illegal increases the price of it, and the gangs  that the government bleats about get a huge amount of their power and money through the sale of drugs. The quickest and simplest way to give gangs a kick in the family jewels is to make drugs legal. Just as in the Prohibition, the gangs flourish because they can supply something that people want and are prepared to live outside the law: ironically, the law of supply and demand is proven right due to Socialist laws. If drugs were legal, anyone could sell them and there would be competition: prices would come down and the gangs would find something else to occupy themselves in between benefit days because there wasn’t any serious money to be made in drugs.

Then there is the fact that taxpayers are wearing the huge cost of the enforcement of drug laws, and of the imprisonment of offenders for committing a victimless crime.

“Drugs are harmful” you say. Yes, drugs are harmful, but that is not a rational reason for making them illegal. Cigarettes are harmful, and no one seriously proposes making them illegal; it is a double standard to support the illegalisation of drugs because they are harmful unless you also support making everything else that is harmful illegal. If you support making everything that is harmful illegal, you have to answer this question: what is the definition of ‘harmful’? There is nowhere you can go to find an objective definition, thus any definition is subjective and simply an arbitrary decision: now that you’ve made an arbitrary decision about what is harmful you’ve arrived at the point that the State is at, so you should re-read the second paragraph of this post.

“Drug dealers are harming drug users” you say. If a drug dealer holds someone down and injects drugs into them, then he is harming someone. If someone buys drugs of their own free will and injects them, then the seller of the drugs is no more harming the user than the seller of cigarettes is harming the smoker. The key here is ‘free will’: the drug user and the smoker are only harming themselves. If you support the illegalisation of drugs because “drug dealers are harming others” then you should also support the illegalisation of the sale of icecream to obese persons, otherwise you are exercising a double standard.

I could go on about the harms and illogicalities inherent in making drugs illegal, but that is ignoring the transcendent issue. What is the transcendent issue? It is this: the government is telling you what you can and cannot put into your body. Nanny State says “Tut, tut, drugs are bad for and you’re not allowed to have them”, like a parent talking to a child. The state has the temerity and the utter arrogance to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, which is a highly intimate invasion of personal freedoms.

I am reminded of the book ‘1984’, where citizens were forced to do exercises every morning in their apartments, and the instructors ensured compliance by watching the citizens through a video camera. That government was also telling people what was acceptable treatment of their bodies.

**********

♦A good article on the issue can be found here, and after you’ve read that my post here will have relevance.

♦Some people will be thinking “This blogger is just a pot head trying to justify his habit”. I have never tried any illegal drugs; my only in interest in this matter is one of principles.

~~~~~~~~~~

Advertisements

10 Comments »

  1. […] minimum drinking age In my earlier post I discussed the illogicalities, harms, and governmental arrogance inherent in the illegalisation of […]

    Pingback by The minimum drinking age « Kiwi Polemicist — September 13, 2008 @ 6:11 am

  2. […] rifles: we don’t need yet more regulations in New Zealand In my earlier post I referred to the murder of an undercover policeman on a drugs case. The police think he may have […]

    Pingback by Air rifles: we don’t need yet more regulations in New Zealand « Kiwi Polemicist — September 13, 2008 @ 11:54 am

  3. […] does a good summary of the arguments for legalising P and other drugs from a Christian perspective. The argument basically comes down to: Drugs and […]

    Pingback by Legalising P? « Samuel Dennis - Family Party candidate for Selwyn — September 18, 2008 @ 11:42 am

  4. […] 2) this simply won’t work: the best way to deal with gangs is to legalise drugs […]

    Pingback by Anti-gang laws are contrary to natural justice and a violation of civil liberties « Kiwi Polemicist — October 1, 2008 @ 9:35 am

  5. […] I said my earlier post, the quickest and simplest way to give gangs a kick in the family jewels is to make drugs […]

    Pingback by Who wants the army on the streets of New Zealand? « Kiwi Polemicist — October 21, 2008 @ 7:22 am

  6. […] The pointless death of an undercover policeman (arguments for drug legalisation, which also apply to […]

    Pingback by Police want drinking age raised « Kiwi Polemicist — April 8, 2009 @ 8:23 am

  7. […] the state has no right tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies. As I said in my earlier post, it was a pointless death of a policeman. On the other hand, everyone who chooses the enforce the […]

    Pingback by • New Zealand Army can be used against civilians « Kiwi Polemicist — May 18, 2009 @ 2:03 am

  8. […] I believe that drugs should be legalised because the state has no right to control what people put into their bodies. You can read my full argument in my post titled The pointless death of an undercover policeman. […]

    Pingback by Was Pablo Escobar a danger to the public? « Kiwi Polemicist — July 12, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

  9. […] The pointless death of an undercover policeman (my arguments for drug legalisation) […]

    Pingback by Woman kills son whilst stoned but drugs are a victimless crime « Kiwi Polemicist — August 1, 2009 @ 11:25 am

  10. […] The pointless death of an undercover policeman […]

    Pingback by Nanny-state proposal for reducing smoking « Kiwi Polemicist — September 4, 2009 @ 10:04 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: