My apologies for the (very) late arrive of this response.

Jef wrote:We do not have a right to intoxicate ourselves. We do however have the freedom to intoxicate ourselves.

Thank you for striking at the heart of the matter here, though I suppose we must acknowledge that we have the freedom to intoxicate ourselves with certain compounds within certain limits in certain jurisdictions.

Jef wrote:Rights are a purely political legal construct, freedom is what we have in the absence of any political legal construct.

Hence SpeedofSound's reticence about the scope and nature of legislation in this area, as the prevalence of restricting legislation 'for the good of society' may, if unchecked, act to reduce the scope of individual freedoms to an intolerable degree. But when people feel that their freedoms may be unduly restricted or limited then talk of a right to X, that is to enshrine or preserve in law that which they value as a personal or general freedom to X, may seem pressing.

Jef wrote:[...] For this reason it is important that we do not conflate freedoms and rights, and that we do not extend rights to protect things which are not of the most vital importance to the welfare of individuals. Doing so dilutes and undermines the concept of rights, potentially making them as mutable as freedoms.

Are rights not mutable to some extent anyway, being within the power of transient political operators who are able ramp up or rescind prosciption through legislation as they see fit?

Jef wrote:Because the negative consequences are not a fait accompli of intoxication in the majority of circumstances it has not been seen as necessary to impose onerous restrictions of peoples' freedom to intoxicate themselves. Adopting this freedom to intoxicate oneself as a right, when it is not of the most fundamental importance to the welfare of individuals, and the negative consequences permit the reasonable view that restrictions are warranted, would serve to undermine the esteem which is necessary for the continued support for rights protection, and do damage to the concept.

Though some would say that the choice to act to do anything with one's own body is of fundamental importance to the freedom of the individual (if not always to the benefit of their welfare), I accept that enshrining a right to intoxication (which amounts to a right to a certain range of personal, individual pleasures) when perhaps more pressing or significant rights issues are outstanding might diminish the concept of rights - as well as perhaps running the risk of developing a culture where freedoms are superseded by laws which maintain individuals can only act if and when the law says they can; the slippery slope SoS mentioned above. The logical conclusion of this would be to move towards a situation where a 'right' was a freedom to X only after the law had has its say.

In practice the subject is not made easier by the fact that intoxicating compounds are inconsistently regulated within and across jurisdictions, with often quite harmful compounds being lightly regulated while relatively less harmful compounds are regulated more tightly.

Some say that as they are granted a freedom to purchase and consume a powerful and addictive intoxicant (such as alcohol) then they should also have a freedom to imbibe less significantly intoxicating and addictive intoxicants (like hashish or E). It is this idea that the law should allow individuals to engage in certain pursuits or activities, to grant or give permission to or sanction the activities individuals deem personally pleasurable, which runs the risk of conflating rights with freedoms (and which led me to frame the OP as I did btw).

If we acknowledge that members of society have no particular enshrined right to intoxicate themselves but are nonetheless granted a freedom to do so within the framework of the law, then I think we must turn to examining the general question of what it is to be intoxicated, and the specific question of why the imbibing of X-compound is deemed permissible while Y-compound is not - given the fact that as a species we are biochemically predisposed to enjoy, and indeed seek out states of intoxication while (on the whole) considering intoxication a personal good in principle even as intoxicants are differentially regulated in practice.

I framed the OP in terms of "intoxicants" and "intoxication" only to avoid what I consider to be a false, and indeed confusing, distinction between compounds whereby legally permissible compounds are deemed for the good and with the legally restricted or forbidden compounds (called "drugs") being deemed morally reprehensible and therefore sanctionable in law wholly aside from an assessment of their effects.

Interesting debate,

The only concept of rights is as a minimum standard of existance any citizen in a nation should have and they are not 'free' they cost both in responsibilities/actions and finanicallly (paying for their enforcement via taxes). Fail to pay you lose those rights, note the 'cost' may not be very high. I would argue a right to life should have a cost in inaction of not currently trying to kill or seriously hurt someone That minimum standard on the whole has increased throughout history but on occasion has declined especially during wartime. Those rights are through consensus are encoded by a law in a democracy and implemented with force. They are in no way absolute , you are not born with any but if you are lucky are born into a society with them

To the topic there is no codified consensus anywhere in the world that says your minimum standard of life should include the right to drink alcohol. Most societies have considered the benefits/costs to individuals and society as a whole to allow alcohol to be purchased/drunk but with significant restrictions.

Hey mj,

Would that kind of pragmatic approach not just mean that in societies/cultures where alcohol is legal then people should be granted a right to intoxication by alcohol, and in those countries where it is not legal there should be no right? I know that sound rather (bleedin') obvious, but one might also wish to account for the fact that in those societies where alcohol is forbidden in law people still imbibe it, and may be/are also free to intoxicate themselves by other means. The point I was striving towards is that intoxication (regardless of the compound) seems to be a ubiquitous human desire, or perhaps even a human need, irrespective of the legal status of this-or-that intoxicating compound in this-or-that cultural setting. Personally, I think this is what the pragmatist must acknowledge before it is possible to proceeding to discuss the merits/demerits of this-or-that intoxicant.

I'd just like to point out that, contrary to some opinions expressed about my viewpoint elsewhere, I'm not a endoser nor advocate of temperance.

Intoxication may or may not be a natural human desire but regardless that doesnt make it a right. I would argue killing and raping are perfectly natural desires

Not sure the right/legal permission to take a potentially intoxicating substance leads to a right/legal permission to get intoxicated in it. It most of the UK its legal to drink beer its not actual legal to be drunk anywhere in public (you can be charged with just being drunk on the floor, its considered disorderly but in reality its unlikely to happen).

I don't think we should make it a crime to be drunk in your own home but that doesnt translate in to it being a right to. If the elected government wanted to pass a law making it a crime.

I guess I put a lot of value on the rule of law and that includes bad laws (as opposed to ones that I consider evil). Banning cannabis is a bad law but its not an evil one. If everyone broke laws they thought were bad ones society would quite simply collapse thats why I support the 'right' of a policeman to arrest me if I'm caught smoking it even through its a stupid law.

They are rare times when it can be justified to break a law but the person doing it should realise the seriousness of going against the rule of law not just because he wants to get stoned or get some free music

'Rights' are difficult to wrestle with sometimes. In an ordered society they seem to often consist of what's left over once the law has had its say, and in a disordered society they are often asserted as inalienable.

In the end (at the top of the page) I put the notion aside and grant that for all intents and purposes we are granted a right to do what is legally permissible.

THWOTH wrote:If we acknowledge that members of society have no particular enshrined right to intoxicate themselves but are nonetheless granted a freedom to do so within the framework of the law, then I think we must turn to examining the general question of what it is to be intoxicated, and the specific question of why the imbibing of X-compound is deemed permissible while Y-compound is not - given the fact that as a species we are biochemically predisposed to enjoy, and indeed seek out states of intoxication while (on the whole) considering intoxication a personal good in principle even as intoxicants are differentially regulated in practice.

Anyway want to come up with how a right is different to something being legal (if any)?
I believe the Americans define rights as something that are legal but can never be made illegal even if the people want it. I don't agree with but has anyone got a different definition or disagree with this?

I'd say we have the right to do whatever the fuck we want without exception... until it impacts on other people which is why some things are illegal from the off

mattwilson wrote:I'd say we have the right to do whatever the fuck we want without exception... until it impacts on other people which is why some things are illegal from the off

Intoxication by alcohol, for example, impacts on others and yet it is not illegal from the off in many, if not most societies. Does this mean our thinking on intoxication should revolve around moral and ethical concerns rather than legal concerns or as a rights issue?

THWOTH wrote:

mattwilson wrote:I'd say we have the right to do whatever the fuck we want without exception... until it impacts on other people which is why some things are illegal from the off

Intoxication by alcohol, for example, impacts on others and yet it is not illegal from the off in many, if not most societies. Does this mean our thinking on intoxication should revolve around moral and ethical concerns rather than legal concerns or as a rights issue?

It's a very difficult one because the way people behave under the influence varies so wildly. With smoking, second hand smoking is a known health concern so it can be legislated against... but to legislate that people can't go out and get wankered because SOME people get violent and vomety is a bit dodgy.

mattwilson wrote:I'd say we have the right to do whatever the fuck we want without exception... until it impacts on other people which is why some things are illegal from the off

There isnt a single thing you do that doesnt impact other people including breathing which makes that sort of libertarian argument silly. You could change that to signficantly impacts others which then becomes define signficant which is what normaly politics is all about

mrjonno wrote:

mattwilson wrote:I'd say we have the right to do whatever the fuck we want without exception... until it impacts on other people which is why some things are illegal from the off

There isnt a single thing you do that doesnt impact other people including breathing which makes that sort of libertarian argument silly. You could change that to signficantly impacts others which then becomes define signficant which is what normaly politics is all about

Well the keyword I omitted was "negatively"

I would say breathing definitely affects people negatively, anytime you breath you are spitting out germs that are potentially fatal.

Would I have someone locked up for having a cold which can kill the vulnerable probably not, but if they have some ultra infectionous high mortality disease absolutely (with medical treatment of course)

mrjonno wrote:I would say breathing definitely affects people negatively, anytime you breath you are spitting out germs that are potentially fatal.

Would I have someone locked up for having a cold which can kill the vulnerable probably not, but if they have some ultra infectionous high mortality disease absolutely (with medical treatment of course)

Then, for the benefit of public health and social well-being, it seems reasonable, sensible, and practicable for a society to make inoculation against infectious and communicable diseases mandatory. Such a mandate of course adversely impacts on the liberty of those who might wish to forgo inoculation, for whatever reason, but surely this is no more of an imposition than mandating a speed limit for drivers(?)

What you two are discussing here then is the means by which we might form an assessment of a individual action, and the possible limitations which may be legitimately imposed on individual action, on the basis of relative harm - both to the individual and/or to wider society. Is this not also the most reasonable, sensible and practicable basis from which to begin an assessment about the legitimacy of intoxication?

What you two are discussing here then is the means by which we might form an assessment of a individual action, and the possible limitations which may be legitimately imposed on individual action, on the basis of relative harm - both to the individual and/or to wider society. Is this not also the most reasonable, sensible and practicable basis from which to begin an assessment about the legitimacy of intoxication?

Still comes down to what you mean by right, right to me has always implied something about any individual law, ie no government could ever ban it without being to put in simple terms being 'evil'. I think it should be legal for someone to get pissed in their own home but I wouldnt consider a government to be morally bankrupt if it make it illegal