Using intoxicants to get high is totally natural

Discussion
1

Some birds like to get a buzz on by eating certain kinds of berries. Reindeer trip out by eating magic mushrooms. Now new research has found that young dolphins deliberately chew on puffer fish (toxic in large amounts) for the narcotic effect that it has in small doses:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/30/puff-puff-pass-young-dolphins-deliberately-chew-puffer-fish-to-get-high-with-each-other/

  Those who want to criminalize people for having fun by getting high aren't just going against common human behavior, they're going against deep-seated biological impulses that are widespread in the animal kingdom.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

2

I think your comment isn't entirely fair to people who want to criminalize intoxicants.

Birds, reindeer and dolphins do not drive cars and kill other birds, reindeer and dolphins as a result of getting drunk or high; people do.
Many, if not most, auto accidents are caused by drunk drivers.

I favor allowing people to drink or smoke whatever they want, BUT, if they then get into a car drive, we should throw them into prison and melt down the keys.

Les

3

Les,

  Should we do the same, in your opinion, if people get into a car and drive when they are sleepy, angry, or distracted? These situations are also known to cause accidents -- only a small percentage of the time to be sure, but that is also true of people driving while intoxicated. My dad once got into a car and drove when he was very angry, and accidentally hit a tree.

  Right now, drivers are often forced to stop at police checkpoints and if a police officer thinks they might be intoxicated, are forced to undergo and pass sobriety tests or be arrested. Do you:

(a) agree this is a totally unconstitutional and immoral practice which is unjustified and should be stopped immediately;

(b) favor police at checkpoints similarly using their personal judgement to analyze whether they think a driver may be sleepy, angry, or distracted, and forcing those individuals who fall under suspicion of being in one of those categories to undergo and pass tests designed to measure their sleepiness, anger level, or level of distraction or face arrest; or

(c) have a double standard under which you judge intoxication more harshly than other accident-causing circumstances?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

4

Should we do the same if people get into a car and drive when they are sleepy, angry or distracted? Yes, of course.
(a) No, I do not agree that this is unconstitutional or immoral or unjustified.
(b) Police do not use their personal judgement to determine if someone is drunk. They have tests and breathalizers to determine. You make it sound like police are acting on total whimsy.
(c) I do not know what I said that gave you that idea.
Your original post compared humans getting drunk or high to birds getting buzzed, reindeer tripping out and dolphins chewing puffer fish for the narcotic effect. I wanted to point out that there is an important difference between these animals and humans in that they do not cause injury or harm to others when they get impaired.

Les

5

Les,

  Thanks for your response. I was not claiming you have a double standard, just asking. You replied that you favor applying similar standards to people driving when sleepy, angry, or distracted, as to people driving intoxicated, which answers that question in the negative. While I appreciate the consistency in your stance, I can't help wondering whether you've thought through the implications, i.e. how will people be tested for sleepiness, anger, or distraction?

  While I think tests could possibly be invented for these purposes that are no less reasonable than some of the less scientific tests often used by police to determine sobriety (asking people to walk in a straight line, focus on an object held in front of their faces, etc.), the bigger issue I see is that deciding when to require people to take any of these tests involves a great deal of subjectivity, and officers often to act on whims, engage in profiling, etc. Do you really want to be forcibly subjected to a bunch of tests just because you were driving, or were stopped at a checkpoint, and some officer thought you looked sleepy or pissed off about something or you were fiddling with the car radio?

  The bottom line for me is that the evil caused by a "prevention" model of crime that tries to stop harm before it happens is worse -- both in terms of civil liberties violations and in terms of wasted resources, not to mention general expansion of government power -- than the evil that results from not catching and stopping crimes in advance such as a drunk driver hitting someone.

  If an officer observes and documents on video someone driving in such a reckless manner (severe weaving down the street, excessive speeding, etc.) that whether or not they hit someone or something appears to be a mere matter of chance, I'm okay with that driver being pulled over and forfeiting the right to continue driving at that time, perhaps also incurring some penalty (which a driver should be able to contest in a jury trial if he or she wishes, without the threat of incurring significant additional punishment if the officer's judgement is upheld). But that's about as far as I think it should go.

  Regarding animals not potentially causing harm (even harm to humans) as a result of being intoxicated, this is not necessarily true. A drunken reindeer could run out into a road and get hit by a car, etc. However I will concede the larger point that with higher awareness comes higher responsibility, meaning that humans have a greater obligation to avoid causing harm than do other less-aware animals.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))