3 ms·
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 addic
by 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 agoNo, those costs are externalized in healthcare, which has a large and real public effect.
- drdaeman 10y agoAhem. 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 agoOpiate 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.