2 ms·

OK, but then what cigarettes, which are more highly addictive than even cocaine, or alcohol, addiction to which is quite damaging to the economy and public safe

by adrusi 11y ago

OK, but then what cigarettes, which are more highly addictive than even cocaine, or alcohol, addiction to which is quite damaging to the economy and public safety, and leads to domestic violence? And what about foods containing refined sugar, which regarding consent demonstrates all the relevant features of addiction? What about microtransaction-based games and stuff like daily fantasy, which take advantage of the depressed? When an addict is buying drugs while sober, they are giving consent. Just because they don't have a choice of not buying the drugs doesn't mean they can't consent to the transaction. I can't choose to not buy food. I can't choose to not pay rent.

millstone 11y ago
What about them? Laws are not made in the abstract for an idealized country. US laws reflect US history and current gestalt, as they should. Tobacco, sugar, and alcohol are legal in part because of their long history of use within the US and the practical difficulties of prohibiting them. If tobacco had been discovered five years ago instead of five hundred, and its addictive and carcinogenic qualities were known, it would not be legal to sell. > When an addict is buying drugs while sober, they are giving consent. It's the consent that a mugger elicits when he convinces his victims to hand over their money to avoid being stabbed.
- adrusi 11y ago
  Tobacco, sugar, and alcohol are legal in part because of their long history of use within the US and the practical difficulties of prohibiting them. Illegal drugs also have a long history of use, in all walks of society. Many of them, like cocaine and opiates and to a lesser extent cannabis, had widespread use before their prohibition. Further, if the laws had been written with respect for history, they should have accounted for the disaster that was the prohibition of alcohol. It's the consent that a mugger elicits when he convinces his victims to hand over their money to avoid being stabbed. No that's a different dynamic. The victim didn't want to be in that confrontation. More, nobody could rationally consent to that since it's dangerous and a net loss. The dynamics of a drug sale are more like the scenarios I listed. But more importantly, if a person is an adult and consensually buys an addictive drug with full knowledge of the addictive properties, then they are consenting to not just that purchase but also all future purchases that they may be physically compelled to make. As for people who were not made aware of the risks or were introduced to the drug as children (a class that could be decimated by legalization), there's a stronger argument that they might not be able to give consent, but they're going to be making the purchase regardless.

by adrusi 11y ago

millstone 11y ago

What about them? Laws are not made in the abstract for an idealized country. US laws reflect US history and current gestalt, as they should. Tobacco, sugar, and alcohol are legal in part because of their long history of use within the US and the practical difficulties of prohibiting them. If tobacco had been discovered five years ago instead of five hundred, and its addictive and carcinogenic qualities were known, it would not be legal to sell. > When an addict is buying drugs while sober, they are giving consent. It's the consent that a mugger elicits when he convinces his victims to hand over their money to avoid being stabbed.

adrusi 11y ago
Tobacco, sugar, and alcohol are legal in part because of their long history of use within the US and the practical difficulties of prohibiting them. Illegal drugs also have a long history of use, in all walks of society. Many of them, like cocaine and opiates and to a lesser extent cannabis, had widespread use before their prohibition. Further, if the laws had been written with respect for history, they should have accounted for the disaster that was the prohibition of alcohol. It's the consent that a mugger elicits when he convinces his victims to hand over their money to avoid being stabbed. No that's a different dynamic. The victim didn't want to be in that confrontation. More, nobody could rationally consent to that since it's dangerous and a net loss. The dynamics of a drug sale are more like the scenarios I listed. But more importantly, if a person is an adult and consensually buys an addictive drug with full knowledge of the addictive properties, then they are consenting to not just that purchase but also all future purchases that they may be physically compelled to make. As for people who were not made aware of the risks or were introduced to the drug as children (a class that could be decimated by legalization), there's a stronger argument that they might not be able to give consent, but they're going to be making the purchase regardless.