4 ms·

I truly believe in human freedom. I also believe that this freedom comes with responsibility : make sure that whatever you do, won't negatively impact your neig

by IMTDb 10y ago

I truly believe in human freedom. I also believe that this freedom comes with responsibility : make sure that whatever you do, won't negatively impact your neighbour. In my country, all health services are paid for by the government, which means my taxes. I believe this is a good system as this allows anyone to get medical help when needed. This include people suffering form illness lead by drug abuse. EG: a liver transplant for an alcoholic costs around $100.000 and is fully paid for by the govt. I dot not want to change this as I believe in the system and I don't want my country to move to a situation where some people are just "left to die" because they made the wrong choices or are not able to pay for medical help. I don't think that this system needs one more substance to deal with. The three biggest source of spending in the system today are : (without order) Hips replacement for elders. Cardiovascular surgery due to obesity. Treatment for lungs / throat cancer. Notice how two of those are already dur to "just" unhealthy habits. And I fear that in 50 years (when I am old), we will have to provide significant resources to elders with cognitive issues caused/helped by excessive use of marijuana. I'll have to live in that world and share the limited ressources of the healthcare with those people. So I think I am allowed to voice my concerns, as I will indirectly will deal with the consequences of their choice.

metaphorm 10y ago
so your argument is that you are concerned about your tax burden 50 years from now? you can't be serious. what about the tax burden TODAY of paying for police, prison, and criminal justice system to enforce prohibition? what about the cost to society TODAY of prohibition?
- IMTDb 10y ago
  I am totally in favor of dtciminalisation. No jail, no active police force looking for it. Cost becomes close to 0. Problem solved. If a policeman finds someone actively selling on the street, take the stuff, write a ticket, and you are good to go. I believe there is a massive difference between making something legal, and making it illegal, even if not penalized. You make it sound as if there is no possible ground between (a) fully legal consume as much as you want, get it easily virtually everywhere or (b) invest millions of dollars to puts hundreds of people in jail.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    there's lots of middle-ground. regulation of potentially harmful substances for adult use is a middle ground that is more legal than decriminalization, and produces better outcomes in my opinion. decriminalization leaves control of the substance in the hands of black market vendors who are ultimately connected with black market producers. the social harm of organized crime related to black market producers is a major issue that is solved by legalization and not by decriminalization. additionally, there is the argument for liberty. why should a police officer be allowed to confiscate something you own, if your society basically agrees that its ok for you to have it? decriminalization is an incoherent policy. why would anyone support a policy that basically says "we think this is bad but we can't be bothered to do anything about it". if its not bad enough to do anything about then why is it illegal? legalization allows for quality control of product, inspection of businesses, collection of tax revenues, and social normalization so informed responsible use by adults can take place. in my opinion, there is no good argument for decriminalization besides the weak "it's better than militant prohibition". any of the goods that come from decriminalization are also present in regulated legalization, and then there are significant additional goods from legalization that cannot be achieved by decriminalization alone.
mercer 10y ago
I don't disagree with your concerns, but the way I see it we should either go all the way and ban stuff like alcohol, or accept that if it's legal, then legalizing marijuana if anything will improve things as they are. I think alcohol by far the more dangerous drug, at least based on what we know now, and yet it's completely accepted in society and often there's even pressure to 'partake'. I would not argue that weed should reach a similar status, and honestly based on the effects it's unlikely to, but even if it did, it would be an improvement. Plus, when you consider the typical 'abuser', it tends to be an either/or situation when it comes to weed and alcohol. I knew many more people who exclusively use one or the other as a coping mechanism than people who use both. My ideal approach to figure out what the longer-term impact of weed could be on society is pretty much exactly the coffeeshop approach: don't make the substance as easily available as alcohol (or cigarettes, in many places), but make it relatively possible to get legally if you want it. Basically, give it the status of something like a massage or going bowling (that might be a pun there, I'm not sure). Not something for every day (I'd hope!), but still something easily accessible and defanged of its status as 'illicit'.
nickik 10y ago
See, for me that is a problem. If a country truly wants to commit to tax payed healthcare for all, needs to provide it for its free citizens, not its worker drones. Its a problem of any Statist system that if the state does something, all the externalizes associated with it, are costs to the state. That typical solution is for the state to internalize/control these externalizes. Without some system to figure out what is to much, you are on a slippery slop. That's the exact point Hayek made in the 'Road to Serfdom'. Not every state intervention will automatically mean that you slide into dictatorship, but rather he argued that if you logically respond to each problem with the natural solution of intervention you will end up in dictatorship. You need some higher level of thinking about the problem otherwise you have a problem. His next 2 two books attempted then about how to design a system of law and governance that effectively balances the needs of individual freedom and state intervention. I don't think he was fully successful, but they are good books either way.

by IMTDb 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

so your argument is that you are concerned about your tax burden 50 years from now? you can't be serious. what about the tax burden TODAY of paying for police, prison, and criminal justice system to enforce prohibition? what about the cost to society TODAY of prohibition?

IMTDb 10y ago
I am totally in favor of dtciminalisation. No jail, no active police force looking for it. Cost becomes close to 0. Problem solved. If a policeman finds someone actively selling on the street, take the stuff, write a ticket, and you are good to go. I believe there is a massive difference between making something legal, and making it illegal, even if not penalized. You make it sound as if there is no possible ground between (a) fully legal consume as much as you want, get it easily virtually everywhere or (b) invest millions of dollars to puts hundreds of people in jail.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  there's lots of middle-ground. regulation of potentially harmful substances for adult use is a middle ground that is more legal than decriminalization, and produces better outcomes in my opinion. decriminalization leaves control of the substance in the hands of black market vendors who are ultimately connected with black market producers. the social harm of organized crime related to black market producers is a major issue that is solved by legalization and not by decriminalization. additionally, there is the argument for liberty. why should a police officer be allowed to confiscate something you own, if your society basically agrees that its ok for you to have it? decriminalization is an incoherent policy. why would anyone support a policy that basically says "we think this is bad but we can't be bothered to do anything about it". if its not bad enough to do anything about then why is it illegal? legalization allows for quality control of product, inspection of businesses, collection of tax revenues, and social normalization so informed responsible use by adults can take place. in my opinion, there is no good argument for decriminalization besides the weak "it's better than militant prohibition". any of the goods that come from decriminalization are also present in regulated legalization, and then there are significant additional goods from legalization that cannot be achieved by decriminalization alone.

mercer 10y ago

I don't disagree with your concerns, but the way I see it we should either go all the way and ban stuff like alcohol, or accept that if it's legal, then legalizing marijuana if anything will improve things as they are. I think alcohol by far the more dangerous drug, at least based on what we know now, and yet it's completely accepted in society and often there's even pressure to 'partake'. I would not argue that weed should reach a similar status, and honestly based on the effects it's unlikely to, but even if it did, it would be an improvement. Plus, when you consider the typical 'abuser', it tends to be an either/or situation when it comes to weed and alcohol. I knew many more people who exclusively use one or the other as a coping mechanism than people who use both. My ideal approach to figure out what the longer-term impact of weed could be on society is pretty much exactly the coffeeshop approach: don't make the substance as easily available as alcohol (or cigarettes, in many places), but make it relatively possible to get legally if you want it. Basically, give it the status of something like a massage or going bowling (that might be a pun there, I'm not sure). Not something for every day (I'd hope!), but still something easily accessible and defanged of its status as 'illicit'.

nickik 10y ago

See, for me that is a problem. If a country truly wants to commit to tax payed healthcare for all, needs to provide it for its free citizens, not its worker drones. Its a problem of any Statist system that if the state does something, all the externalizes associated with it, are costs to the state. That typical solution is for the state to internalize/control these externalizes. Without some system to figure out what is to much, you are on a slippery slop. That's the exact point Hayek made in the 'Road to Serfdom'. Not every state intervention will automatically mean that you slide into dictatorship, but rather he argued that if you logically respond to each problem with the natural solution of intervention you will end up in dictatorship. You need some higher level of thinking about the problem otherwise you have a problem. His next 2 two books attempted then about how to design a system of law and governance that effectively balances the needs of individual freedom and state intervention. I don't think he was fully successful, but they are good books either way.