A Legal Question

‘The online purchase of a New Zealand-made drug touted as the "strongest energy pill legally available in the world" could land NSW residents in jail, police have warned.

The benzylpiperazine-based products are legal in New Zealand and marketed online under names such as "Dark Angel", "Grin", "Red Hearts", "Majik", "Kandi", "Frenzy", "Altitude" and "Humma", police said.’

Quoted from the Sydney Morning Herald on the 10^th of October.

Seriously, why is there always someone to rain on other people’s parade? Presumably the jurisprudential logic behind a penal sentence for the purchase of these drugs, or for their illegality at all, is based in a desire to prevent one form causing harm to oneself, and as such amounts to a form of paternalism (I am assuming that there is no particular moral reason for their prohibition). If we are to give any weight to the liberal tradition’s justification for a criminal prohibition, as our legal system appears to do so heavily, then this should theoretically not be considered a legitimate reason for any liberty limiting legislation, or at least not in the opinion of J.S. Mill. It seems that if these drugs are criminalized because of harm to self, then so should all forms of drug, including alcohol and nicotine and presumably also caffeine and its ilk, unless there is some moral reason for paternalism, which again, Mill would not have found sufficient reason for such legislation.

What justification is there for criminalising the purchase of a drug that is unlikely to cause personal harm to the degree of causing collateral harm to others, especially if we consider that two of the most socially harmful drugs (alcohol and nicotine) are not legislated against (if you are of a threshold age and in certain areas) on the basis of either harm to others or harm to self?

Three Articles

Firstly, an interview from Cogito with philosopher John Haugeland on human intelligence and responsibility. It includes an interesting discussion of AI (so Sam should read it).

Secondly, a Foucauldian analysis of EU telephone and internet surveillance regulations, from Le Monde diplomatique.

Thirdly, a discussion of the role of religion in social cohesion.

All via Eurozine.