4 ms·

No, because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life

mindcrime 11y ago
because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life And? If that's their preference who are you (or I, etc.) to say otherwise?
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  See: tragedy of the commons, positive externalities, etc. etc. Even the most staunch libertarian has to agree that personal choices which negatively effect society must have some sort of curtailing policy to make whole those effected
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    Imma thinkin a "staunch libertarian" would be okay with not regulating advertising and letting people pop pills.
- wpietri 11y ago
  People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. If the principle we live by is maximizing total individual freedom, then I think freedom from addiction has to be part of that. For that matter, much of the point of advertising is also to subvert one's preferences. So as a believer in individual freedom, I'm in favor of ending corporate freedom to profitably manipulate individuals.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. It's an interesting point to discuss. Presumably they did (in most scenarios) have a choice when beginning the drug, but then once addicted, you have a good point. So should we argue that that initial choice was made freely, and that we have no right to use force to break you from that addiction (presuming you aren't hurting or posing a threat to anybody else)? Or should we say that since you aren't truly making willful decisions, then intervening isn't violating your personal notion of agency, and going "against your will"? I'd have to give this one some more thought to be honest. It strikes me that it isn't a simple question. OTOH, I still have no problem saying that anyone who is free to make conscious, willful decisions (whether we consider than rational or not) should be free to make the choice to put anything in their body that they want.
    - abannin 11y ago
      I have yet to meet the person who, when asked for the reason for their decision, replies "it was irrational". The truth is that people take the action they feel is the most rational, and there are many factors influencing that conclusion. It's also important to consider that addiction is far more complicated than a dependance on a biochemical reactions to a stimulus. There are strong psychological issues at play as well. If we were to outlaw every addictive substance or action, surely no form of entertainment would remain legal. A person always has a decision to engage an addiction. Deciding to not be addicted is the foundation to recovery. This choice cannot be removed at any point in a person's life, be it before, during, or after an addiction. To say that an addict is not making decisions is like saying that someone you disagree with is not thinking. Just because you don't like their opinions or their behaviors does not justify denying their freedoms.
      - mindcrime 11y ago
        I think I agree with you, but I'm willing to consider that there might be a bit more nuance to the issue. Like I said, I'd have to think about it more to be sure (that is speaking only in regards to somebody who already has an addiction). But overall, I am still for complete legalization of all drugs, as I still hold that a consenting adult has the right to put any substance in his/her body that he/she chooses. I would also oppose a law restricting the advertising of prescription drugs. But, then again, in my world, the distinction between "prescription" or not would be a lot fuzzier anyway. It might even disappear altogether.
        wpietri 11y ago
        My general way of balancing this is not the allowed/forbidden model, but more the public health model, including things like licensing and insurance. For example, I think people should be free to play all they want with explosives. But given that explosives are subtle and dangerous, I think it's reasonable to require that people using them be licensed, including extensive practical exams, and that they be properly insured, which may include insurance company inspections and the like. They're welcome to make the choice to light any given fuse, but given the potential consequences it should be an informed, responsible choice that has fully accounted for the consequences.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    That's doublespeak. "In order to be free, you must not be free". And very few people are even remotely rational in the first place. And there's little irrational in choosing opiates (long term effects are not nearly as bad as many other things deemed acceptable).
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Try writing it out longer with different kinds of freedom. It's only doublespeak because you oversimplify.
MichaelGG 11y ago
So now you're not only denying people relief if they desire it, but further saying their lives aren't constructive? Even if that were true, I don't see how overriding personal choice is the correct move.

mindcrime 11y ago

because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life And? If that's their preference who are you (or I, etc.) to say otherwise?

pdeuchler 11y ago
See: tragedy of the commons, positive externalities, etc. etc. Even the most staunch libertarian has to agree that personal choices which negatively effect society must have some sort of curtailing policy to make whole those effected
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  Imma thinkin a "staunch libertarian" would be okay with not regulating advertising and letting people pop pills.
wpietri 11y ago
People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. If the principle we live by is maximizing total individual freedom, then I think freedom from addiction has to be part of that. For that matter, much of the point of advertising is also to subvert one's preferences. So as a believer in individual freedom, I'm in favor of ending corporate freedom to profitably manipulate individuals.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. It's an interesting point to discuss. Presumably they did (in most scenarios) have a choice when beginning the drug, but then once addicted, you have a good point. So should we argue that that initial choice was made freely, and that we have no right to use force to break you from that addiction (presuming you aren't hurting or posing a threat to anybody else)? Or should we say that since you aren't truly making willful decisions, then intervening isn't violating your personal notion of agency, and going "against your will"? I'd have to give this one some more thought to be honest. It strikes me that it isn't a simple question. OTOH, I still have no problem saying that anyone who is free to make conscious, willful decisions (whether we consider than rational or not) should be free to make the choice to put anything in their body that they want.
  - abannin 11y ago
    I have yet to meet the person who, when asked for the reason for their decision, replies "it was irrational". The truth is that people take the action they feel is the most rational, and there are many factors influencing that conclusion. It's also important to consider that addiction is far more complicated than a dependance on a biochemical reactions to a stimulus. There are strong psychological issues at play as well. If we were to outlaw every addictive substance or action, surely no form of entertainment would remain legal. A person always has a decision to engage an addiction. Deciding to not be addicted is the foundation to recovery. This choice cannot be removed at any point in a person's life, be it before, during, or after an addiction. To say that an addict is not making decisions is like saying that someone you disagree with is not thinking. Just because you don't like their opinions or their behaviors does not justify denying their freedoms.
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      I think I agree with you, but I'm willing to consider that there might be a bit more nuance to the issue. Like I said, I'd have to think about it more to be sure (that is speaking only in regards to somebody who already has an addiction). But overall, I am still for complete legalization of all drugs, as I still hold that a consenting adult has the right to put any substance in his/her body that he/she chooses. I would also oppose a law restricting the advertising of prescription drugs. But, then again, in my world, the distinction between "prescription" or not would be a lot fuzzier anyway. It might even disappear altogether.
      - wpietri 11y ago
        My general way of balancing this is not the allowed/forbidden model, but more the public health model, including things like licensing and insurance. For example, I think people should be free to play all they want with explosives. But given that explosives are subtle and dangerous, I think it's reasonable to require that people using them be licensed, including extensive practical exams, and that they be properly insured, which may include insurance company inspections and the like. They're welcome to make the choice to light any given fuse, but given the potential consequences it should be an informed, responsible choice that has fully accounted for the consequences.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  That's doublespeak. "In order to be free, you must not be free". And very few people are even remotely rational in the first place. And there's little irrational in choosing opiates (long term effects are not nearly as bad as many other things deemed acceptable).
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Try writing it out longer with different kinds of freedom. It's only doublespeak because you oversimplify.

MichaelGG 11y ago

So now you're not only denying people relief if they desire it, but further saying their lives aren't constructive? Even if that were true, I don't see how overriding personal choice is the correct move.