Creating explosive drugs in a populated area

[Summer]

Hello OOnet,

I've become a little confused on an issue and need help eliminating contradictions within the argument. It started off with me discussing the legalization of marijuana and led to the question of whether or not it should be within one's right to create meth (or other drugs which have the potential to explode) in the suburban/city. My basic reasoning came down to:

It should be illegal because... I can understand individuals having a right to their lives and therefore, having a right to their bodies (being allowed to take meth) - however, if the creation of a drug is stepping upon the rights of the property owners around the facility (such as, in this case, the methamphetamine labs), what then? Meth labs can explode at any given time. If this occurs, all the property around the lab will also be destroyed. With this in mind, you are putting the property of others at risk as much as your own. Rights cannot infringe other rights. You cannot have the authority to ruin someone else's possessions. If a person holds a gun to your head, even if he does not pull the trigger, can you expect him to be stopped? A meth lab is like a loaded gun pointing in all directions

But then I started thinking...

They shouldn't be illegal because... Is a threat an actual defiance of one's right or can we only be punished for action (ie: should the meth lab really explode and destroy the property/kill the other person, there would be consequences - assuming the meth cooker was not killed in the process - and if there are no damages, there will be no legal intervention)? After all, doesn't the individual have a right to his own property? Doesn't he have the right to decide to have a meth lab on his own land? At what point is a potential the means to take action? Can you hold someone responsible for a risk?

A right is an agreement between rational beings to their own life (and, consequently, their liberty and their property). Any action to jeopardize their life (or, as a corollary, their liberty/property) is an infringement of rights. So, if you give someone just cause to believe that their rights are going to be infringed by physical force, is it still an infringement?

My contradiction: Why is a potential violation a violation of rights? Why isn't it just a potential violation? When can you take action? Is feeling threatened a justification?

I need thoughts on this.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Summer

[Robert J. Kolker]

Hello OOnet,

I've become a little confused on an issue and need help eliminating contradictions within the argument. It started off with me discussing the legalization of marijuana and led to the question of whether or not it should be within one's right to create meth (or other drugs which have the potential to explode) in the suburban/city. My basic reasoning came down to:

It should be illegal because... I can understand individuals having a right to their lives and therefore, having a right to their bodies (being allowed to take meth) - however, if the creation of a drug is stepping upon the rights of the property owners around the facility (such as, in this case, the methamphetamine labs), what then? Meth labs can explode at any given time. If this occurs, all the property around the lab will also be destroyed. With this in mind, you are putting the property of others at risk as much as your own. Rights cannot infringe other rights. You cannot have the authority to ruin someone else's possessions. If a person holds a gun to your head, even if he does not pull the trigger, can you expect him to be stopped? A meth lab is like a loaded gun pointing in all directions

But then I started thinking...

They shouldn't be illegal because... Is a threat an actual defiance of one's right or can we only be punished for action (ie: should the meth lab really explode and destroy the property/kill the other person, there would be consequences - assuming the meth cooker was not killed in the process - and if there are no damages, there will be no legal intervention)? After all, doesn't the individual have a right to his own property? Doesn't he have the right to decide to have a meth lab on his own land? At what point is a potential the means to take action? Can you hold someone responsible for a risk?

A right is an agreement between rational beings to their own life (and, consequently, their liberty and their property). Any action to jeopardize their life (or, as a corollary, their liberty/property) is an infringement of rights. So, if you give someone just cause to believe that their rights are going to be infringed by physical force, is it still an infringement?

My contradiction: Why is a potential violation a violation of rights? Why isn't it just a potential violation? When can you take action? Is feeling threatened a justification?

I need thoughts on this.

There are several places where reckless endangerment is discussed.

The summary from Wikipedia is:

Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

Bob Kolker

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm sure if electricity was outlawed, people would be getting killed left and right from poorly made illegal power stations and wiring. That wouldn't be a good argument to keep the ban.

I doubt making meth would become the first legal industry people decide to continue doing from their own homes, or even that legal math labs would be prone to explode. What's making it dangerous is the fact that meth is illegal, and incompetent criminals make it, in their homes.

[New Buddha]

Most cities have Zoning Codes that identify where certain types of activities can take place, such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc. And all cities in the U.S. have Building Codes that require buildings to be designed to accommodate to the type of hazard that takes place within -- both for the safety of the occupants and to prevent the spread of fire from one building to another. Even assuming that Meth. were legalized, the manufacturing and storage of a high hazard chemical in a residential single-family house in a residential zone would not be allowed in any city that I'm aware of.

That would, of course, lead to the next question of whether Zoning Codes and Building Codes violate an owners right to use his property as he sees fit.

[Summer]

Most cities have Zoning Codes that identify where certain types of activities can take place, such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc. And all cities in the U.S. have Building Codes that require buildings to be designed to accommodate to the type of hazard that takes place within -- both for the safety of the occupants and to prevent the spread of fire from one building to another. Even assuming that Meth. were legalized, the manufacturing and storage of a high hazard chemical in a residential single-family house in a residential zone would not be allowed in any city that I'm aware of.

I already thought about this (having a specific area away from people to create the meth). My question is: Can we make it illegal to do otherwise in a free society (as you addressed with: "That would, of course, lead to the next question of whether Zoning Codes and Building Codes violate an owners right to use his property as he sees fit.")

[DavidOdden]

My contradiction: Why is a potential violation a violation of rights? Why isn't it just a potential violation?

Your right is to exist free from the initiation of force by other men. The key is "initiation" -- the bullet does not have to actually pierce your skull for there to be an initiation of force. Because man operates conceptually, we can actually predict the future in certain circumstances, and know what the consequences of certain actions will be. That means we know that force will be applied to us when certain things are true. This means that morally, we can and must treat actually implemented force as on a par with a threat.

Whether or not running a meth lab actually constitutes a threat is an open question. The thousand gallons of gas plus welding torch at my corner gas station would be a recipe for disaster in the hands of the guys from Jackass, but under the control of a competent mechanic who knows that fire and gasoline don't mix, it's safe.

[Summer]

Your right is to exist free from the initiation of force by other men. The key is "initiation" -- the bullet does not have to actually pierce your skull for there to be an initiation of force. Because man operates conceptually, we can actually predict the future in certain circumstances, and know what the consequences of certain actions will be. That means we know that force will be applied to us when certain things are true. This means that morally, we can and must treat actually implemented force as on a par with a threat.

Whether or not running a meth lab actually constitutes a threat is an open question. The thousand gallons of gas plus welding torch at my corner gas station would be a recipe for disaster in the hands of the guys from Jackass, but under the control of a competent mechanic who knows that fire and gasoline don't mix, it's safe.

Is your final opinion that it should be legal or illegal?

[Capitalism Forever]

Definitely shouldn't be illegal, but the owners of surrounding properties may demand that the guy running the lab follow reasonable safety procedures.

[Eiuol]

Definitely shouldn't be illegal, but the owners of surrounding properties may demand that the guy running the lab follow reasonable safety procedures.

When could you demand him to follow safety procedures, though? When would demands of safety become a violation of rights?

[DavidOdden]

Is your final opinion that it should be legal or illegal?

An action should only be illegal if, by its nature, it constitutes a threat in reality. The fact that an act is somewhat dangerous does not mean that performing the act should be a crime, if the danger can be mitigated. For the most part, dangerous acts ought to be handled under the law in terms of post hoc civil remedies.

[Capitalism Forever]

When could you demand him to follow safety procedures, though?

If you lived within the radius where the explosion could cause irreversible damage to you or your property. (And it should be noted that you wouldn't get to choose the specific procedures for him to follow; if he can demonstrate that the way he is running his business is safe, he has a right to continue doing so.)

[New Buddha]

If you lived within the radius where the explosion could cause irreversible damage to you or your property. (And it should be noted that you wouldn't get to choose the specific procedures for him to follow; if he can demonstrate that the way he is running his business is safe, he has a right to continue doing so.)

This is the role that is currently fulfilled by government through the rule of law. Cities adopt and/or create codes which regulate activites that pose a potential risk people.

[Eiuol]

This is the role that is currently fulfilled by government through the rule of law. Cities adopt and/or create codes which regulate activites that pose a potential risk people.

That's kind of what I'm asking about. A lot of government regulations are purely based on potential risk (say, meat must be of the FDA's standards because people might die). I'm not sure what level of safety should be required of people in risky businesses such as explosives production or in this case, meth production, or if safety is even a proper standard to use. You can never completely remove a risk, so should those industries be banned because they are a potential violation of rights? My thinking is that something can only be done after an action has occurred, or when a threat has been made. It would probably make me uncomfortable to know someone is making dangerous explosive substances next door and feel threatened because there is a 5% chance of an accident occurring. However, another person might feel completely unthreatened with the same 5% risk.

[New Buddha]

That's kind of what I'm asking about. A lot of government regulations are purely based on potential risk (say, meat must be of the FDA's standards because people might die). I'm not sure what level of safety should be required of people in risky businesses such as explosives production or in this case, meth production, or if safety is even a proper standard to use.

One way of looking at the issue is as follows:

While you have a right to live in a society and trade with other members of that society, none of them are obligated to trade with you. Other members of a society could isolate you by refusing to trade with you if you engage in un-safe behavior (or even if they just don't like you). Refusing to trade with someone is not a use of force.

If you CHOOSE to live in a city and enjoy the benefits of safe buildings, sanitation, fire protection, clean water, electricity, etc. then you are obligated to abide by the laws of that city. You can always move to another city with laws and a government more to your liking, or you could go squat in a cave and live apart from other men. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't expect to enjoy the benefits of society without some obligation to abide by the laws that make that society work. Safe buildings, clean water, sanitation, etc. don't just happen, like that cave in the woods. They happen because people choose to act in a way that 1) benefits themselves and 2) happens to benefit others.

This is why City or County Governments are preferable to State and Federal Governments. 95% of the government that you come in to contact is at the City (or County) level. Local governments are much more accountable to its citizens and open to feedback. This is what our Founding Fathers understood when they set up the Government they way they did.

[necrovore]

A free system would rule out zoning laws. You do have the right to use your property as you see fit.

However, there is such a thing as subjecting a person or his property to undue risk (i.e., without his informed consent), and that would probably make a good civil tort. They could sue you.

An undue risk is a nuisance, just like playing your stereo really loud or filling the air with smoke.

Therefore, if you were handling explosives in your garage that had the potential to explode and kill your neighbors, your neighbors could sue you for subjecting them to an undue risk of death or property damage without their consent, and then you'd have to show that you are doing what you can to prevent such explosions.

You might be able to address some risk by buying an insurance policy that will pay your neighbors if their property is destroyed. The underwriters would probably either charge really high rates or else insist on the right to inspect your operation before they insure it. This might not be enough when lives are at stake, though.

In order to win the suit you'd have to demonstrate that you were following safety procedures in order to minimize the risks, and that the newly minimized risks were about as low as if you weren't doing anything. The safety procedures would have to be based on the nature of the risk involved.

If you cannot develop appropriate safety procedures, then you have to carry out the risky activity somewhere else.

Industrial plants would be subject to the same kinds of requirements. That is one reason why they are usually located far away from homes.

[DavidOdden]

A lot of government regulations are purely based on potential risk (say, meat must be of the FDA's standards because people might die).

Yes, most regulations are indeed based on there being some risk. The government absolutely has no business preventing people from taking risks. The only thing they should do is prohibit threats. Threats and risks are quite different.

[New Buddha]

However, there is such a thing as subjecting a person or his property to undue risk (i.e., without his informed consent), and that would probably make a good civil tort. They could sue you.

UL (Underwriters Laboratories), ASTM (American Standard Testing Materials), IBC (International Building Code), FM (Factory Mutual), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) – these are some of the private, non-governmental codes that architects, engineers, manufacturers and insurance companies use to establish safe standards in construction and manufacturing. Cities adopt these codes to provide objective standards which serve as the basis for any dispute in courts of law regarding potentially unsafe conditions. If the cities (and their courts) don't adopted standards, then businesses and home owners could be subject to endless, frivolous lawsuits. This would make long term planning impossible for everyone. People will not spend millions of dollars on new homes, business and factories unless they can have some assurance that they will not be shut-down every time a suit is filed.

[Summer]

Peikoff's assistant e-mailed me saying: "Dr. Peikoff says that if it's true that the type of lab you are thinking of is a real threat to adjacent property then certainly it should be illegal". Brings me back to my original question.

If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such, what is to prevent the banning of cars (you could hit someone)? Or perhaps even, as mentioned above, electricity? Where do we draw the line?

[Robert J. Kolker]

Peikoff's assistant e-mailed me saying: "Dr. Peikoff says that if it's true that the type of lab you are thinking of is a real threat to adjacent property then certainly it should be illegal". Brings me back to my original question.

If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such, what is to prevent the banning of cars (you could hit someone)? Or perhaps even, as mentioned above, electricity? Where do we draw the line?

the principle is that one should not impose an unreasonable hazard on another. The princpile is not that one should not impose any hazard on each other. To live within earshot of another human will impose some hazard, but at a level most people will accept. The definite of reasonable/unreasonable is intuitive and depends on the social norms of the community. There is no scientific/mathematical algorithm for it.

In -Atlas Shrugged-, Ayn Rand mentioned that a method of controlling a steel furnace break out where one stood right at the Dragon's Mouth and shoveled clay into it, had been made illegal because it was so dangerous. This was in the scene where Hank and Franscisco save a plugged up furnace from breaking apart.

Bob Kolker

[A is A]

Peikoff's assistant e-mailed me saying: "Dr. Peikoff says that if it's true that the type of lab you are thinking of is a real threat to adjacent property then certainly it should be illegal". Brings me back to my original question.

If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such, what is to prevent the banning of cars (you could hit someone)? Or perhaps even, as mentioned above, electricity? Where do we draw the line?

In the same place where the line should be drawn: the initiation of force, which includes the real, actual threat of such initiation. As mentioned above, risks are not equivalent to threats. That cars could hit someone is not a threat to your rights. Cars ride on roads, not on sidewalks. If they ride on sidewalks, they are a threat. If you walk on a sidewalk, you voluntarily assume the risk of being hit by a car if it loses control, but you don't assume that cars will be typically driving on the sidewalk. Part of what constitutes a threat is the establishment of a contract, explicit or implicit, among parties. If a person moves into a neighborhood and lets his neighbors know he's building a meth lab, and they voluntarily agree to the risk, then the potential for an explosion is on their shoulders should it happen. A risk may become a threat when the parties involved do not have a contract concerning a transaction. Meat may potentially have deadly bacteria in it, but it is a risk when I purchase meat. It becomes a threat when the meat actually does have deadly bacteria because that was not in the implied contract when I purchased edible food (I did not agree to purchase meat with deadly bacteria in it). Which is the basis for me suing or prosecuting the seller whether I actually died or just got sick or even if I didn't eat the food but tested it and found it had the bacteria.

[A is A]

---------------

My contradiction: Why is a potential violation a violation of rights? Why isn't it just a potential violation? When can you take action? Is feeling threatened a justification?

I need thoughts on this.

Think about that for a moment. I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money. You hand it over. No rights violation occurred because you voluntarily gave me the money and the bullet never struck your body. What is rights violation and where does the principle come from? Man's means of survival is by the use of his mind, his reason, his rational faculty. I have to judge reality and act in accordance with my judgment in order to live a rational life. In my example, is it your judgment that you should give me your money? If so, then why did you wait until I pointed a gun at you? I'll send you my address and you can write me a check today! Clearly, the gun made you act in a way that you would not have acted except for the presence of the gun. The principle, then, is that if an action forces you to act in a way that you would not have judged to act on your own with the threat removed, then it is an actual initiation of force, and not a potential violation.

[DavidOdden]

If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such, what is to prevent the banning of cars (you could hit someone)? Or perhaps even, as mentioned above, electricity? Where do we draw the line?

At the point of establishing that the thing is a real threat. Look again at your question, and what Peikoff's assistant said (assuming that you quoted him/her verbatim) -- "If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such", versus "if it's true that the type of lab you are thinking of is a real threat". You are talking of pretexts, he is talking of reality. You must first establish that, by its nature, the manufacture of meth is a real threat, which in fact it is not. You are bypassing the step where you establish that there is an actual threat. It's totally obvious that cars and electricity are also not a threat, so the line is clearly drawn and they are on the "safe" side of that line.

[New Buddha]

You must first establish that, by its nature, the manufacture of meth is a real threat, which in fact it is not. You are bypassing the step where you establish that there is an actual threat.

Per the IBC Life/Safety Code (which is developed by a private organization), buildings are classified by the type of activity that takes place within, i.e. Business, Mercantile, Institutional, Residential, Storage, etc., and each classification has a corresponding hazard level. These hazards levels are determined by laboratory testing, empirical observation of use, forensic analysis of failures, etc. These codes have been built-upon for well over 150 years and represent an incredible achievement in rational, scientific thought. The Haiti earthquake is an example of what can happen when codes are neither adopted nor enforced.

Too often people believe that codes, plan reviews, permits etc. are designed by the state to "thwart" property owners or infringe upon their rights. However, the reason they developed historically and the role they play in society is to provide legal protection to property owners. This is in keeping with the true nature and purpose of objective law.

Say a developer is spending $120 million on a new high-rise condo building. By documenting with the city -- prior to the start of construction -- that he is meeting current legal and industry standards for safety, he is gaining a measure of protection from lawsuits that adjacent property owners or future users could bring. Without a code that has been legally adopted by the courts, property owners would be open to endless lawsuits and would have no objective way of resolving disputes. Also, in the event that something unfortunate did happen, such as a fire that results in the loss of a life or damage to adjacent property, the owner (and architects and engineers!) can show that they did design a building to meet current industry standards (a term which has a legal definition).

Without legally adopted codes and legal approval prior to the start of construction, ALL development and construction in the U.S. would come to a grinding halt. Codes are not created by governments -- they are adopted by them. Codes are developed by business and industry to provide guidelines for action. This is not a weakness of our type of system, it is a strength. It is an expression of the role that individual rights and private property plays in our lives.

Edited January 16, 2010 by New Buddha

[DavidOdden]

Too often people believe that codes, plan reviews, permits etc. are designed by the state to "thwart" property owners or infringe upon their rights.

Nobody believes that that is the reason why codes etc are imposed. And, it is a fact that these codes do infringe on the rights of property owners.

Your argument is entirely off-base, because it is the right of a property owner to decide what level of risk he will accept. I will repeat myself one last time: risk is not the same as a threat.

Without a code that has been legally adopted by the courts, property owners would be open to endless lawsuits and would have no objective way of resolving disputes.

Nonsense. Courts have been adjudicating damage lawsuits for millenia without any such codes. Such codes are a recent invention. Preventative law is entirely unnecessary. Edited January 16, 2010 by DavidOdden

[ZSorenson]

Without legally adopted codes and legal approval prior to the start of construction, ALL development and construction in the U.S. would come to a grinding halt. Codes are not created by governments -- they are adopted by them. Codes are developed by business and industry to provide guidelines for action. This is not a weakness of our type of system, it is a strength. It is an expression of the role that individual rights and private property plays in our lives.

What about specifying a code in a contract? Why does the code need to be legislated? Anything can be owned. Roads could be owned, while you own the property adjacent to it. The road owners could own the sidewalks as well and function as a 'community organization'. They own your land to begin with, and it is sold to you under a contract that regards certain codes. What about this scenario removes the benefits of city life that you have mentioned. People do benefit from associating with each other through trade, but trade should be the standard for interaction. City councils respond to populism. Why is that a good way of establishing a standard? The people of Haiti don't have good codes because they don't have good government. But they don't have good government because they don't have an objective society. Individuals can create and and follow good standards without government.

But considering that our society is not structured the way I described, that is, the way things are now require government involvement - if they own roads and public areas, and control utilities. But we're talking about an ideal.

On another note - sorry for moving slightly out of context - but why should people be free to produce and sell meth [edit]? Isn't there a point after which a drug is so damaging to the rational capacity, and so addicting, that its use renders a person legal incapable of acting as a rational adult? Rights are for rational people, and while there are mental retards, or even hopeless mystics, is there any capacity by which meth can be consumed where it does not automatically and undeniably have the effects I've mentioned. Granted, it's a tough legal argument to make, because some substances affect rational capacity, but aren't addicting, and can be used responsibly. In then end, an adult has to choose to take meth the first time, and this choice can't be regulated. As far as producers/sellers of meth are concerned, you could ban their activities on the basis that addicts cannot be expected to have the rational capacity to quit their addiction. Though, as I said, the user had to try it first. And, if selling addictive things becomes in any way illegal, you have an impossible precedent that would inevitably infringe on rights. So, I guess meth ought to be legal, but I hold out hope that there's an objective legal argument against it. Because there's no way meth production could ever be considered ethical.

Edited January 16, 2010 by ZSorenson