5 ms·

While I [would like to] agree that people have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies, we cannot deny that there are negative societal extern

While I [would like to] agree that people have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies, we cannot deny that there are negative societal externalities caused by individual addictions. Everything ranging from something as abstract as an increase in national healthcare spending to something as palpable as coming home to find that your house has been burglarized by addicts.

dave_sullivan 9y ago
I think all of the issues that cause drug addicts to be expensive or harmful to society are externalities of the war on drugs. For your two examples: Increased healthcare spend: But why don't we draw a line for alcohol and tobacco? Or people eating too much? All of these are legally sanctioned choices people make. It gets into slippery territory when you start telling people what they can or can't do because of the burden they'll place on the healthcare system. Slippery territory that leads to the situation we currently have. People stealing your tv: Spend less money on chasing and locking up drug users and more money on chasing and locking up burglars. Also, if we're just talking about simple economics here, the cost of supplying the entire world with high quality, low price drugs would not be terribly high. It's like, "How many homeless alcoholics are robbing homes because they can't find a drink?" That could be paired with a general public education campaign about the realities of drugs (I mean, Trainspotting and Leaving Las Vegas are kind of about the same thing right?) So I deny that there are negative societal externalities. I'll make an exception for the fact that families pretty much literally lose loved ones to addiction, and that's a pretty big one, but I think it gets into the kind of territory of "do you owe your family anything?" I would say no, if you want to throw away your life to drugs, that's not the state's business. And again, I'm really not advocating anyone start doing any of these things, I'm advocating that the state stop locking people up for doing them. In order for that to happen, it requires a certain amount of acceptance.
- vitaminbandit 9y ago
  I think you've made some excellent points, but you can't simultaneously deny the existence of negative societal externalities caused by individual drug use while acknowledging that the usage of drugs (including alcohol, tobacco, and excessive eating) imposes a cost onto society in the form of [just one example] increased healthcare spending. I think my particular stance is that the war on drugs is a massive failure that props up prices, lowers quality, and destroys the lives of many young non-violent "offenders." This is probably quite similar to your position, but I think the primary difference is that I would not advocate lifting the prohibition against drugs like heroin, which can supposedly turn a person into an addict within a few sessions. I think my position is ultimately something like this: Should the state lock someone up for using heroin? No, it's their money and their body. Should the state lock someone up for using heroin and then committing a crime? Yes, because of the crime. Would the legalization of heroin cause an increase in number of people committing crimes? Yes, because of its addictive potential and the extremely difficult/potentially fatal withdrawals. Whether or not that would actually be the case, I can't say.

dave_sullivan 9y ago

I think all of the issues that cause drug addicts to be expensive or harmful to society are externalities of the war on drugs. For your two examples: Increased healthcare spend: But why don't we draw a line for alcohol and tobacco? Or people eating too much? All of these are legally sanctioned choices people make. It gets into slippery territory when you start telling people what they can or can't do because of the burden they'll place on the healthcare system. Slippery territory that leads to the situation we currently have. People stealing your tv: Spend less money on chasing and locking up drug users and more money on chasing and locking up burglars. Also, if we're just talking about simple economics here, the cost of supplying the entire world with high quality, low price drugs would not be terribly high. It's like, "How many homeless alcoholics are robbing homes because they can't find a drink?" That could be paired with a general public education campaign about the realities of drugs (I mean, Trainspotting and Leaving Las Vegas are kind of about the same thing right?) So I deny that there are negative societal externalities. I'll make an exception for the fact that families pretty much literally lose loved ones to addiction, and that's a pretty big one, but I think it gets into the kind of territory of "do you owe your family anything?" I would say no, if you want to throw away your life to drugs, that's not the state's business. And again, I'm really not advocating anyone start doing any of these things, I'm advocating that the state stop locking people up for doing them. In order for that to happen, it requires a certain amount of acceptance.

vitaminbandit 9y ago
I think you've made some excellent points, but you can't simultaneously deny the existence of negative societal externalities caused by individual drug use while acknowledging that the usage of drugs (including alcohol, tobacco, and excessive eating) imposes a cost onto society in the form of [just one example] increased healthcare spending. I think my particular stance is that the war on drugs is a massive failure that props up prices, lowers quality, and destroys the lives of many young non-violent "offenders." This is probably quite similar to your position, but I think the primary difference is that I would not advocate lifting the prohibition against drugs like heroin, which can supposedly turn a person into an addict within a few sessions. I think my position is ultimately something like this: Should the state lock someone up for using heroin? No, it's their money and their body. Should the state lock someone up for using heroin and then committing a crime? Yes, because of the crime. Would the legalization of heroin cause an increase in number of people committing crimes? Yes, because of its addictive potential and the extremely difficult/potentially fatal withdrawals. Whether or not that would actually be the case, I can't say.