3 ms·

Free refills? How dare you! That stomach doesn't belong to the consumer, it's merely being rented from the state!

krastanov 10y ago
You are making an argument based on taking this to an extreme. But take it to the other extreme: is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy? The merits of this new French law can be argued, but it is not an obvious overreach.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > But take it to the other extreme: is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy? Given that the most effective treatment for heroin addiction is diacetylmorphine maintenance (aka, prescription-strength heroin)[0], I'd say it's definitely governmental overreach. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
  - notpc 10y ago
    I'm not in favor of restricting soda, but I strongly contest the heroin example you're giving. To call that "treatment" is really playing with the terms and shifting the goal posts. It's like saying that the treatment for gambling is to have unlimited money. You may be solving one problem, but you're not solving the central issue. Black-market heroin is particularly bad, but so is being addicted to opiates at all.
- jMyles 10y ago
  > is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy? I think you are making a good point, but this is a horrific example. Heroin prohibition has been a spectacular failure. There are literally bodies in the streets to show for it.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  I believe your comparison isn't correct. Or, at least, is a bad example. Certain substances are banned not (just) because they're harmful but because its addicts way too frequently tend to exhibit certain behaviors that are harmful to others. Don't think it's any common to hear about a soda, coffee or chocolate addict incurring violence on drug-fueled rampage, or stealing to get another dose.
  - Retra 10y ago
    No, those costs are externalized in healthcare, which has a large and real public effect.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      Ahem. Unless my reading/understanding is wrong, parent comment was about reasons for banning heroin. Yep, heroin has negative health effects. Yep, ban has all sorts of economic consequences. I don't think many would argue with that. Still, are those the reasons why it and alike substances were banned in the first place? I believe your points are different from what caused my disagreement.
      - swift 10y ago
        Opiate prohibition also has a lot to do with racism against Asians, who used to be associated with opiates in the mind of the public. Similarly the prohibition against marijuana in the US has a lot to do with racist attitudes towards Latino and Black people. Attitudes towards drugs often have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with who's doing it.
tomatsu 10y ago
Classic "nanny state" defense. The food industry invented that, by the way.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > The food industry invented the classic nanny state defense Citation needed. That's like saying Patrick Henry invented liberty.
- benchaney 10y ago
  Even it that is true, that doesn't make it wrong.
  - tomatsu 10y ago
    The Nanny State™ also puts age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. Excessive sugar consumption is a huge problem for our society. Much more so than statistically insignificant stuff like terrorism. If there is something which has a massive negative impact of huge parts of the population, the state is supposed to do something about it. The US gov also wanted to do something about this several times in the past, but the US food industry is just too powerful and influential.

You are making an argument based on taking this to an extreme. But take it to the other extreme: is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy? The merits of this new French law can be argued, but it is not an obvious overreach.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> But take it to the other extreme: is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy? Given that the most effective treatment for heroin addiction is diacetylmorphine maintenance (aka, prescription-strength heroin)[0], I'd say it's definitely governmental overreach. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
- notpc 10y ago
  I'm not in favor of restricting soda, but I strongly contest the heroin example you're giving. To call that "treatment" is really playing with the terms and shifting the goal posts. It's like saying that the treatment for gambling is to have unlimited money. You may be solving one problem, but you're not solving the central issue. Black-market heroin is particularly bad, but so is being addicted to opiates at all.
jMyles 10y ago
> is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy? I think you are making a good point, but this is a horrific example. Heroin prohibition has been a spectacular failure. There are literally bodies in the streets to show for it.
drdaeman 10y ago
I believe your comparison isn't correct. Or, at least, is a bad example. Certain substances are banned not (just) because they're harmful but because its addicts way too frequently tend to exhibit certain behaviors that are harmful to others. Don't think it's any common to hear about a soda, coffee or chocolate addict incurring violence on drug-fueled rampage, or stealing to get another dose.
- Retra 10y ago
  No, those costs are externalized in healthcare, which has a large and real public effect.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Ahem. Unless my reading/understanding is wrong, parent comment was about reasons for banning heroin. Yep, heroin has negative health effects. Yep, ban has all sorts of economic consequences. I don't think many would argue with that. Still, are those the reasons why it and alike substances were banned in the first place? I believe your points are different from what caused my disagreement.
    - swift 10y ago
      Opiate prohibition also has a lot to do with racism against Asians, who used to be associated with opiates in the mind of the public. Similarly the prohibition against marijuana in the US has a lot to do with racist attitudes towards Latino and Black people. Attitudes towards drugs often have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with who's doing it.

tomatsu 10y ago

Classic "nanny state" defense. The food industry invented that, by the way.

paulddraper 10y ago
> The food industry invented the classic nanny state defense Citation needed. That's like saying Patrick Henry invented liberty.
benchaney 10y ago
Even it that is true, that doesn't make it wrong.
- tomatsu 10y ago
  The Nanny State™ also puts age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. Excessive sugar consumption is a huge problem for our society. Much more so than statistically insignificant stuff like terrorism. If there is something which has a massive negative impact of huge parts of the population, the state is supposed to do something about it. The US gov also wanted to do something about this several times in the past, but the US food industry is just too powerful and influential.