5 ms·

>Some people have better impulse control than others; it's not the state's job to regulate the impulses of their populaces, or regulate systems that know how to

>Some people have better impulse control than others; it's not the state's job to regulate the impulses of their populaces, or regulate systems that know how to manipulate them. Individual freedom part of me would agree but in reality governments do this all the time and I can't say it's all bad either. A good example is drug control - while it's currently taken to the extreme there's no doubt in my mind that fully legalizing drugs would lead to a more volatile society - even if drugs were legal they would still cost money, as would other basic necessities - and hard addicts aren't in any position to be productive. At best they will be a burden on their community. At worst they turn to crime. Not to mention the increased number of psychotic breakdowns. I value a society which is based on individual freedom but I don't like the idea of living in a society where I have to be afraid of a junky robbing me if I step outside of my house or dying in a random guns blazing suicide shooter spree. >but this shit has been around as long as humanity itself has existed Interesting and somewhat obvious point that gets overlooked a lot. For example the "mainstream media conspiracy" argument (which is rather accepted considering how implausible the argument is on the grand scale) of dumbing down the population and intentionally shoving superficial crap/shocking stories as a part of some coordinated conspiracy to divert attention from "important issues". I don't doubt that there is plenty of media manipulation from political and private circles - in the grand scheme of things a far more plausible explanation for the media we have is that they cater to their audience and know which buttons need to be pressed to get viewership. And their profit model is not aligned with quality content either.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
there's no doubt in my mind that fully legalizing drugs would lead to a more volatile society Many hard drugs (including cocaine and heroin) were legal in the United States prior to the 1920s. To the best of my knowledge, there was no massive social breakdown as a result. The ultimate irony is that a major motivation for the criminalization of cocaine was, for poor rural whites, a fear that drugged up blacks would start raping white women. [1] Needless to say, this did not materialize and there is no reason it will if we lift the ban. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-out-of-soda/272694/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-too...
- rayiner 11y ago
  The united States was very violent in the early 20th century and many blamed cocaine.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    It certainly was a tumultuous period, but what reliable evidence is there of cocaine being a major causal factor? The USA was plagued by lots of labor-related violence, race rioting and organized crime (peaking during Prohibition, of course), but was cocaine ever anything more than a scapegoat?
    - ethbro 11y ago
      Cocaine aside, environmental lead via gasoline and paint weren't exactly helpful either.
ethbro 11y ago
I'm amazed you're the first (or highest rated) one to mention addictive drug control. It's a pretty clear analogy. And I think the point is more directly made by the effect on the individual themselves. The reason unreasonably addictive drugs should be illegal isn't to save me the safety issues of addicts: it's the respect the addict's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - qualities which are substantially helped by not having your behavior driven by feeding your addiction. Ironically, side note I researched before this comment: we've apparently only recently (mid-70s) returned to the early 1900s/pre-Prohibition levels of ethanol consumption per capita. https://prohibition.osu.edu/brewing/consumption https://prohibition.osu.edu/brewing/consumption
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Nothing like respecting individual rights by bringing the wrath of the criminal justice system on anyone who dares exercise their right to self-ownership by altering their state of consciousness. The purpose of a drug policy is not to reduce consumption rates. Consumption is not intrinsically bad. My use of the dangerous and potent drug known as theobromine (translation: I eat chocolate) is not itself the problem. A higher rate of consumption of pure and unadulterated drugs with active health and rehabilitation initiatives is preferable to lower consumption but with autistically intervening in people's self-ownership through use of the police and penal apparatus, disincentivizing health treatment as a result, bringing about organized crime and making addiction more dangerous because of tainted drugs that are peddled by unreliable black marketeers. Paternalistic and destructive nonsense through and through. (You did say illegal, not criminalized. Latter would be more humane in being a fine, but still unacceptable.)
  - ethbro 11y ago
    I believe you mistook my comment for support of the current drug control system in the United States, when I really said nothing of the sort. The purpose of a drug policy is (ostensibly) and has always been to reduce consumption rates -- look at any of the public support / speeches since the policies were begun (going back to Temperance / Prohibition). That that purpose is ill served by the current effective policy has nothing to do with the reason the public supports the idea. > A higher rate of consumption of pure and unadulterated drugs with active health and rehabilitation initiatives is preferable to lower consumption but with autistically intervening in people's self-ownership through use of the police and penal apparatus I'd absolutely agree with this, although I'd argue that a higher-rate of consumption is not in and of itself beneficial. If you're telling me that a teenager deciding to try heroine is "individual rights", then that's crap. Addiction differences between various compounds are well known ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Risk_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Risk_fact... ). Are you saying there's no potential at which a drug should be illegal? A 100% addictive drug? A 50% addictive drug? 25%? 5%? Imo, there's a point where socially we can absolutely say, "No, that thing is too dangerous to let you have without precautions." I'd be in favor of allowing people to sample those substances if they went through a course to earn the right to do so. You want to try heroin? Fine, but let's as a society make sure this isn't an impulse action and is something you're sure you want to do (and are aware and willing to accept the consequences of). If you're taking individual rights umbrage at my support of a drug control policy, then look at it this way: if addictive drugs were legal and fully unregulated, who do you think the majority of the profits would go to? Hint: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Merck... Do you really trust them to freely market a compound that has 10%+ addiction capture rate?

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

there's no doubt in my mind that fully legalizing drugs would lead to a more volatile society Many hard drugs (including cocaine and heroin) were legal in the United States prior to the 1920s. To the best of my knowledge, there was no massive social breakdown as a result. The ultimate irony is that a major motivation for the criminalization of cocaine was, for poor rural whites, a fear that drugged up blacks would start raping white women. [1] Needless to say, this did not materialize and there is no reason it will if we lift the ban. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-out-of-soda/272694/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-too...

rayiner 11y ago
The united States was very violent in the early 20th century and many blamed cocaine.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  It certainly was a tumultuous period, but what reliable evidence is there of cocaine being a major causal factor? The USA was plagued by lots of labor-related violence, race rioting and organized crime (peaking during Prohibition, of course), but was cocaine ever anything more than a scapegoat?
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Cocaine aside, environmental lead via gasoline and paint weren't exactly helpful either.

ethbro 11y ago

I'm amazed you're the first (or highest rated) one to mention addictive drug control. It's a pretty clear analogy. And I think the point is more directly made by the effect on the individual themselves. The reason unreasonably addictive drugs should be illegal isn't to save me the safety issues of addicts: it's the respect the addict's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - qualities which are substantially helped by not having your behavior driven by feeding your addiction. Ironically, side note I researched before this comment: we've apparently only recently (mid-70s) returned to the early 1900s/pre-Prohibition levels of ethanol consumption per capita. https://prohibition.osu.edu/brewing/consumption https://prohibition.osu.edu/brewing/consumption

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Nothing like respecting individual rights by bringing the wrath of the criminal justice system on anyone who dares exercise their right to self-ownership by altering their state of consciousness. The purpose of a drug policy is not to reduce consumption rates. Consumption is not intrinsically bad. My use of the dangerous and potent drug known as theobromine (translation: I eat chocolate) is not itself the problem. A higher rate of consumption of pure and unadulterated drugs with active health and rehabilitation initiatives is preferable to lower consumption but with autistically intervening in people's self-ownership through use of the police and penal apparatus, disincentivizing health treatment as a result, bringing about organized crime and making addiction more dangerous because of tainted drugs that are peddled by unreliable black marketeers. Paternalistic and destructive nonsense through and through. (You did say illegal, not criminalized. Latter would be more humane in being a fine, but still unacceptable.)
- ethbro 11y ago
  I believe you mistook my comment for support of the current drug control system in the United States, when I really said nothing of the sort. The purpose of a drug policy is (ostensibly) and has always been to reduce consumption rates -- look at any of the public support / speeches since the policies were begun (going back to Temperance / Prohibition). That that purpose is ill served by the current effective policy has nothing to do with the reason the public supports the idea. > A higher rate of consumption of pure and unadulterated drugs with active health and rehabilitation initiatives is preferable to lower consumption but with autistically intervening in people's self-ownership through use of the police and penal apparatus I'd absolutely agree with this, although I'd argue that a higher-rate of consumption is not in and of itself beneficial. If you're telling me that a teenager deciding to try heroine is "individual rights", then that's crap. Addiction differences between various compounds are well known ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Risk_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Risk_fact... ). Are you saying there's no potential at which a drug should be illegal? A 100% addictive drug? A 50% addictive drug? 25%? 5%? Imo, there's a point where socially we can absolutely say, "No, that thing is too dangerous to let you have without precautions." I'd be in favor of allowing people to sample those substances if they went through a course to earn the right to do so. You want to try heroin? Fine, but let's as a society make sure this isn't an impulse action and is something you're sure you want to do (and are aware and willing to accept the consequences of). If you're taking individual rights umbrage at my support of a drug control policy, then look at it this way: if addictive drugs were legal and fully unregulated, who do you think the majority of the profits would go to? Hint: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Merck... Do you really trust them to freely market a compound that has 10%+ addiction capture rate?