4 ms·

> I despise the later. I think in general adults should be able to make up their minds about ingesting chemicals that might hurt them. However, it makes sense

> I despise the later. I think in general adults should be able to make up their minds about ingesting chemicals that might hurt them. However, it makes sense to make an exception -- if the chemical has addictive properties and empirically is likely to have network effects (i.e. in practice it tends to spread through the community), it seems reasonable for the government to step in and regulate the substance in more substantial ways than enforcing disclosure. I'd argue adults don't make choices with respect to these chemicals out of their own free will, but are coerced into consuming them through biological/social rewards mechanisms, and I think it's the government's responsibility to step in. For example, regulating psilocybin seems like an obviously bad idea (it doesn't seem to be addicting and doesn't devastate communities), where as regulating crystal meth is an obviously good idea. I don't know where the line is (e.g. what about cocaine? it's addictive and has propensity to spread, but isn't nearly as bad as meth), but that doesn't mean there aren't obvious extremes. I also don't know what the government can do about it (making distribution illegal doesn't seem to work), but philosophically, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to step in if it can be effective.

TimPC 11y ago
There is an even stronger case for banning chemicals that are consumed in public in a way that exposes others. I think my right to not consume that crap trumps your right to consume it in a specific public setting, even though I generally disagree with the government trying to protect people from themselves.
iamsohungry 11y ago
> I think in general adults should be able to make up their minds about ingesting chemicals that might hurt them. However, it makes sense to make an exception -- if the chemical has addictive properties and empirically is likely to have network effects (i.e. in practice it tends to spread through the community), it seems reasonable for the government to step in and regulate the substance in more substantial ways than enforcing disclosure. Does it? What result are you trying to produce by this legislation? If you're trying to produce the result that fewer people use X harmful substance, then it absolutely does not make sense to regulate the substance itself. Evidence suggests that regulation merely makes selling the substance more profitable and buying the substance more "edgy", making the substance more dangerous. Instead, it makes sense to provide better programs for treatment and education around the substance, which results in lower usage, higher recovery rates when someone does use it, and less incentives for people to traffic the substance. But if you're trying to produce profits for prison corporations and further militarize law enforcement, by all means, let's make all substances illegal.

TimPC 11y ago

There is an even stronger case for banning chemicals that are consumed in public in a way that exposes others. I think my right to not consume that crap trumps your right to consume it in a specific public setting, even though I generally disagree with the government trying to protect people from themselves.

iamsohungry 11y ago

> I think in general adults should be able to make up their minds about ingesting chemicals that might hurt them. However, it makes sense to make an exception -- if the chemical has addictive properties and empirically is likely to have network effects (i.e. in practice it tends to spread through the community), it seems reasonable for the government to step in and regulate the substance in more substantial ways than enforcing disclosure. Does it? What result are you trying to produce by this legislation? If you're trying to produce the result that fewer people use X harmful substance, then it absolutely does not make sense to regulate the substance itself. Evidence suggests that regulation merely makes selling the substance more profitable and buying the substance more "edgy", making the substance more dangerous. Instead, it makes sense to provide better programs for treatment and education around the substance, which results in lower usage, higher recovery rates when someone does use it, and less incentives for people to traffic the substance. But if you're trying to produce profits for prison corporations and further militarize law enforcement, by all means, let's make all substances illegal.