Introduction<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In the defence of freedom, Islam is often accused of being unable to deal with modern day In recent days the debate over legalising drugs has revealed the inability of the Western Substance abuse is a huge problem in the world. Drugs are consumed for either hedonistic Drug abuse is not new. However the crime epidemic fuelled by the need for drug takers to <\/p>\n The call for the legalisation of drugs is not just restricted to cannabis. Various people Of the various arguments put forward on this issue, they broadly fall into two Pragmatic The Guardian newspaper (29\/3\/2002) reported that heroin addicts steal an estimated The contrary argument is equally valid too, in that if drugs are illegal why can’t ‘Legalising drugs and regulating its sale will reduce crime. Prohibition does not work’ A cursory look at alcohol, – a regulated drug -, which is only sold by license and then With regards to prohibition, Rowena Young the author of a government thinktank report ‘It is impractical to police the current drug laws’ This argument goes hand in hand with the above argument to de-criminalise and regulate Ideological This oft-quoted mantra of freedom is used as a blanket justification to permit all The other equally irrelevant ideological argument posed is that of democracy. If the The Liberal-Democract party’s Home Affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said, “I think public The opinion of one expert is better than the majority opinion of a thousand lay people, Mans inability to objectively legislate is exposed by the contradictory laws on the In order to pronounce a substance as legal or illegal, man is in need of a sound basis to Conclusion<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The fundamental problem in legalising drugs is not the issue itself, but rather freedom It may be that you hate something and it is good for you and it may be that you like What is beneficial to one person is not necessarily beneficial to another. Which is why The mind can thus grasp and comprehend the reality and reach certain conclusions, but the Thus, the drug causing the greatest addiction in the west is not heroin or even crack ‘He who adopts an opinion based on his aql, he will reserve himself a place in the \u00a0 by\u00a0 Mazhar Khan Pathan \u00a0 Introduction In the defence of freedom, Islam is often accused of being unable to deal with modern day problems. Below we look at why the contrary is true....<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[87,13],"class_list":["post-432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-about-islam","tag-crime","tag-islam-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=432"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/432\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":434,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/432\/revisions\/434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nproblems. Below we look at why the contrary is true.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\npolitical system to deal effectively with this problem or for that matter any problem
\nbased on the creed of freedom. In following its creed to deal with the problem of drugs, the
\nmatter remains far from resolved, exposing the impracticality of such a creed.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\npursuits or as a means to escape from a miserable life. Whatever the reason, both are
\nintrinsically tied to Capitalism, the ideology of freedom. Some take drugs to practise their
\nfreedom to create heaven on earth. Others take drugs to escape from the hell created by
\nfreedom. The Office of National Statistics found that the pursuit of freedom does not
\ncreate a heaven on earth. It found almost one in six UK adults have contemplated suicide at
\nsome point in their lives Below we analyse the various justifications put in favour of
\nlegalising drugs and identify the real crisis behind the issue.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\npay for their habit has pushed politicians to address this issue. They have pumped
\nresources into the police force and enacted one initiative after another, but drug related
\ncrime continues to rise, putting an ever-increasing demand on the taxpayer and the police
\nforce. Much police time is taken in arresting both drug pushers and drug takers, taking
\nlimited police resources away from other policing matters. Seven out of ten crimes are drugs
\nrelated according to one Home Office study. Government figures also show that over a
\nthird of adults have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives. According to Drugscope,
\na policy think tank, there are about 266,000 problem users in the UK. By whatever
\nmeasure, drugs are a serious problem for wider society.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ngiving evidence to the Commons home affairs committee earlier in the month (March 2002)
\nurged MPs to legalise heroin. Mr Gillespie, the father of a son who died of heroin abuse,
\nappealed to MPs to legalise heroin so that it could be regulated to prevent ‘impure’
\nheroin from killing young people. This call was made by others too. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ncategories, pragmatic and ideological. It may be argued that in the case of Capitalism it is one
\nand the same, nevertheless we analyse these arguments.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n‘Alcohol is a drug and legal so why can’t heroin?
\nAlcohol is a drug and has been legal for many years. It is viewed in the west as a sign
\nof their civility in that it can be enjoyed at social gatherings. If that is the case with
\nalcohol, then why not other drugs? That is the gist of the argument.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n‘43,000 a year. If alcohol is the cause of so many ills in society it is hardly a justification
\nto legalise drugs, even so, this cannot be the basis for legislating. Many laws in the
\npast have been considered to be wrong and have been repealed or changed. So basing a new
\nlaw on an existing law does not guarantee its correctness. For example, it could have been
\nargued in the past that since slavery was legal, the enslavement of women too should be
\nlegal, as both blacks and women were considered inferior to the white male.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nalcohol be banned? This highlights the inability to base one law on an existing law. If A is
\nillegal and B is legal, do you make A legal or make B illegal? This dilemma is due to the
\nabsence of a comprehensive reference point upon which to base laws.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nIt is claimed that the money gained through the sale of illegal drugs are used to finance
\nother crimes. Also the impurity of drugs sold by dubious people poses a major health risk
\nto drug users.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nonly to over 18s, undermines the above claim. The BBC revealed (26\/3\/2002) that 20% of
\nall 11 to 15 year old drank alcohol. Regulation of alcohol has done little to curtail under
\naged drinking. Neither is there any legislating to stop its abuse. A person over the age
\nof 18 can drink as much as they like to the point of becoming senseless. It is not
\nillegal to drink to the point of becoming ‘leg-less’ and so losing the control of ones ability
\nto stand up. This may be classed as an individual’s freedom to drink what they like, but
\nthis type of alcohol abuse costs the British National Health Service ‘6 billion a year,
\nwhich is shouldered by the tax payer.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nsaid, ‘ There is not a single piece of evidence to show prohibition works’. This is true;
\nprohibition of drugs cannot work within the context of a western society since the law
\nwould be in contradiction with its creed. The creed stipulates individual freedom whereas the
\nbanning of drugs contradicts that same freedom. In such a situation the laws can result
\nonly in failure. Prohibition would only work if there existed a symbiosis between the
\ncreed and the legislation. When people believe in the laws that are applied, the laws can
\nsucceed. In the west the freedom of the individual contradicts with legislation curtailing a
\npersons freedom. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nBrian Paddick, until very recently the Commander of Lambeth Police in south London, said
\nin a recent discussion on drugs, “We need to take the criminality out of it by
\nlegalisation and strict control.”. So many people are taking drugs, that it is not practical to
\narrest them all. Many politicians including chiefs of police too have admitted to taking
\n‘recreational’ drugs. Society in the west would cease to function if all drug takers were
\nput in prison. One government report stated that 1 in 5 of all people arrested were on
\nheroin. The report also estimated that each heroin addict stole goods worth a staggering
\n‘43,000 a year! (The Guardian, 29\/3\/2002). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ndrugs. The police and the government are quick to point that this will greatly reduce crime
\nfigures. If this argument is taken to its natural conclusion, it would conclude that all
\ncrime that is problematic be legalised, that way society would be crime free. No longer
\nwould car theft and muggings be classed as crime. This is preposterous. Such an argument
\nonly exposes the inherent contradiction and the impracticality of it. Such an incoherent
\nargument only underlines the inability of man to deal consistently with life’s problems.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nThose who hold the concept of freedom sacred, the bedrock of Capitalism, it is argued
\nthat man is free and should be allowed to eat and drink without interference, as long as he
\ncauses no harm to others. A former chief constable of Gwent Francis Wilkinson has said
\nthat the legalisation of cannabis is a logical consequence of the Human Rights Act.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nthings. No society practises freedom, rather they all have laws and regulations to organise and
\nprotect society. Allowing man to be absolutely free results in chaos. Those who call for
\nfreedom, do so in relative terms and not absolute, since that is impractical. If freedom
\nis relative then who has the right to define freedom’ If man is free then why should one
\nman dictate to another the definition of freedom’ So whether a society claims to be free
\nor not, someone has to lay down the law. Hence the real issue is not of whether a society
\nis free or not, clearly all societies have laws. The real question is who has the right
\nto legislate, man or the creator of man’<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nmajority of people believe that drugs should be legalised, then who are the minority to
\ninsist on its illegitimacy. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nopinion is also being pragmatic and saying, well, I might not want to use it myself, but
\nthis should not be a policing priority, and there are many things we want the police to
\ndo, and many crimes we want them to deal with, and actually people using cannabis for
\nrecreational activities isn’t anywhere near the top of our list.”<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nhence the majority opinion is not always correct. More than this, the human mind is unable
\nto qualify an act as legal or illegal, since this is a matter of opinion. Alcohol has
\nbenefits as well as harms. Even if man agreed that the harm out weighted the good, he would
\ndisagree on the approach. For example Both Britain and France agree about the harm
\nalcohol causes. However Britain believes this is best dealt with by liberalising drink laws so
\nas to avoid binge drinking. France on the other hand is tightening its laws.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nstatute books. Alcohol is legal, but cocaine is not. Polygamy is illegal but adultery is not.
\nLaws are in a state of constant flux and inconsistency. A thing legal in one country is
\nillegal in another. The same thing in the same place may be illegal at one time and then
\nlegal at another time. Since man is influenced by his environment, his pronouncements are
\nrelative and never objective<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nwhich to refer to. Only a divine basis can be a valid basis to do this.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nplacing man as the legislator is. Man is unable to legislate in the absence of full
\nknowledge and his inherent weakness. Here lies the problem. Various principles are used to
\njustify an opinion not because they are correct, but because they afford the opinion some
\nrespectability. In many cases the real criteria for an opinion is merely benefit or
\npleasure.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nsomething and it is bad for you, Allah knows and you do not know. (TMQ 2:216)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nlaws are inconsistent with the principles used for their justification. For example some
\ncall to legalise drugs based on the reasoning that prohibition is unworkable. However,
\nthis same argument is not used for car theft, which is also a problematic crime<\/p>\n
\nmind cannot qualify a thing as good or bad. If it attempts to do so, it will be
\ninfluenced by the reality and limited by its experience, which is why human debates tend to be
\ncategorized into male\/female, rich\/poor and black\/white divides.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ncocaine, but rather the slogan of freedom. It is a slogan behind which politicians hide
\nwhilst subjugating a society to their whims and desires. The intoxication induced by freedom
\nhas befogged the minds of many to recognise the fraud of freedom. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nhellfire’ (Bukhari and Muslim)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"