Cognitive liberty: Difference between revisions

Line 54:

In the case of ''R v Hardison'', the defendant, charged with eight counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), including the production of [[DMT]] and [[LSD]], claimed that cognitive liberty was safeguarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37</ref> Hardison argued that "individual sovereignty over one's interior environment constitutes the very core of what it means to be free", and that as psychotropic drugs are a potent method of altering an individual's mental process, prohibition of them under the MDA was in opposition to Article 9.<ref>Walsh, 433</ref> The court, however, disagreed, calling Hardison's arguments a "portmanteau defense" and relying upon the UN Drug Conventions and the earlier case of ''R v Taylor'' to deny Hardison's right to appeal to a superior court.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Casey Hardison's arrest marked the first detected case of LSD manufacture inside the UK since 1978's arrest of chemists Richard Kemp and Munro<ref>http://www.drugwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Druglink-Jan-Feb-2011.pdf</ref>.

Richard Kemp had originally written an 8,000 word defence statement for his arrest in the UK police investigation [[Operation Julie]] but was advised by his lawyers against using it. It was released at the time to a journalist at the Cambrian News who précised it under the headline ‘Microdoctrine – the tenets behind Kemp’s LSD’. The gist of Kemp’s defence was that LSD was a catalyst for social change, the ~~motive~~ was the ~~ideal not~~ the ~~money~~.

Richard Kemp had originally written an 8,000 word defence statement for his arrest in the UK police investigation [[Operation Julie]] but was advised by his lawyers against using it. It was released at the time to a journalist at the Cambrian News who précised it under the headline ‘Microdoctrine – the tenets behind Kemp’s LSD’. The gist of Kemp’s defence was that LSD was a catalyst for social change, his motive behind the ring's leadership was the expectation that widespread use of LSD by Britain's youth would catalyse a leftist Revolution, leading to the overthrow of the aging and morally bankrupt. For the temerity of admitting this to post-arrest police, sentences totalled 120 years in prison.<ref>https://archive.org/stream/THELAND_201412/Acid%20Daze%20-%20Brotherhood%20of%20Eternal%20Love,%20History_djvu.txt</ref> The Kemp branch allegedly manufactured 50% of the world's LSD at the time, amounting to tens of millions of hits over a several year period.

~~==Criticism==~~

== Criticism ==

While there has been little publicized criticism of the concept of cognitive liberty itself, drug policy reform and the concept of human enhancement, both closely linked to cognitive liberty, remain highly controversial issues. The recent development of neurosciences is increasing the possibility of controlling and influence specific mental functions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ferro|first=Fulvio|last2=Gerola|first2=Alessio|last3=Mazzocca|first3=Marco|last4=Sommaggio|first4=Paolo|date=2017-11-01|title=Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration|url=http://www.biodiritto.org/ojs/index.php?journal=biolaw&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=255|journal=BioLaw Journal - Rivista di BioDiritto|language=it|volume=0|issue=3|pages=27–45–45|issn=2284-4503}}</ref> The risks inherent in removing restrictions on controlled cognitive-enhancing drugs, including of widening the gap between those able to afford such treatments and those unable to do so, have caused many to remain skeptical about the wisdom of recognizing cognitive liberty as a right.<ref>Blitz, 1063</ref> political philosopher and Harvard University professor Michael J. Sandel, when examining the prospect of memory enhancement, wrote that "some who worry about the ethics of cognitive enhancement point to the danger of creating two classes of human beings – those with access to enhancement technologies, and those who must make do with an unaltered memory that fades with age."<ref>{{cite book|last=Sandel|first=Michael J.|title=The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering|date=2007|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|isbn=9780674036383}}</ref> Cognitive liberty then faces opposition obliquely in these interrelated debates.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 In the case of ''R v Hardison'', the defendant, charged with eight counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), including the production of [[DMT]] and [[LSD]], claimed that cognitive liberty was safeguarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37</ref> Hardison argued that "individual sovereignty over one's interior environment constitutes the very core of what it means to be free", and that as psychotropic drugs are a potent method of altering an individual's mental process, prohibition of them under the MDA was in opposition to Article 9.<ref>Walsh, 433</ref> The court, however, disagreed, calling Hardison's arguments a "portmanteau defense" and relying upon the UN Drug Conventions and the earlier case of ''R v Taylor'' to deny Hardison's right to appeal to a superior court.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Casey Hardison's arrest marked the first detected case of LSD manufacture inside the UK since 1978's arrest of chemists Richard Kemp and Munro<ref>http://www.drugwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Druglink-Jan-Feb-2011.pdf</ref>.
-Richard Kemp had originally written an 8,000 word defence statement for his arrest in the UK police investigation [[Operation Julie]] but was advised by his lawyers against using it. It was released at the time to a journalist at the Cambrian News who précised it under the headline ‘Microdoctrine – the tenets behind Kemp’s LSD’. The gist of Kemp’s defence was that LSD was a catalyst for social change, the motive was the ideal not the money.
+Richard Kemp had originally written an 8,000 word defence statement for his arrest in the UK police investigation [[Operation Julie]] but was advised by his lawyers against using it. It was released at the time to a journalist at the Cambrian News who précised it under the headline ‘Microdoctrine – the tenets behind Kemp’s LSD’. The gist of Kemp’s defence was that LSD was a catalyst for social change, his motive behind the ring's leadership was the expectation that widespread use of LSD by Britain's youth would catalyse a leftist Revolution, leading to the overthrow of the aging and morally bankrupt. For the temerity of admitting this to post-arrest police, sentences totalled 120 years in prison.<ref>https://archive.org/stream/THELAND_201412/Acid%20Daze%20-%20Brotherhood%20of%20Eternal%20Love,%20History_djvu.txt</ref> The Kemp branch allegedly manufactured 50% of the world's LSD at the time, amounting to tens of millions of hits over a several year period.
-==Criticism==
+== Criticism ==
 While there has been little publicized criticism of the concept of cognitive liberty itself, drug policy reform and the concept of human enhancement, both closely linked to cognitive liberty, remain highly controversial issues. The recent development of neurosciences is increasing the possibility of controlling and influence specific mental functions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ferro|first=Fulvio|last2=Gerola|first2=Alessio|last3=Mazzocca|first3=Marco|last4=Sommaggio|first4=Paolo|date=2017-11-01|title=Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration|url=http://www.biodiritto.org/ojs/index.php?journal=biolaw&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=255|journal=BioLaw Journal - Rivista di BioDiritto|language=it|volume=0|issue=3|pages=27–45–45|issn=2284-4503}}</ref> The risks inherent in removing restrictions on controlled cognitive-enhancing drugs, including of widening the gap between those able to afford such treatments and those unable to do so, have caused many to remain skeptical about the wisdom of recognizing cognitive liberty as a right.<ref>Blitz, 1063</ref> political philosopher and Harvard University professor Michael J. Sandel, when examining the prospect of memory enhancement, wrote that "some who worry about the ethics of cognitive enhancement point to the danger of creating two classes of human beings – those with access to enhancement technologies, and those who must make do with an unaltered memory that fades with age."<ref>{{cite book|last=Sandel|first=Michael J.|title=The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering|date=2007|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|isbn=9780674036383}}</ref> Cognitive liberty then faces opposition obliquely in these interrelated debates.