7 ms·

Drugs were not made illegal because they're bad for your health and they don't remain illegal because they're bad for your health. Poisons are generally not il

Drugs were not made illegal because they're bad for your health and they don't remain illegal because they're bad for your health. Poisons are generally not illegal. Drugs are illegal because they make people feel good or make them happy which offends the Protestant Work Ethic. The Protestant Work Ethic says that the only legitimate route to happiness is through physically difficult labor which causes you to suffer. The greater the suffering, the greater the virtue and the greater the happiness you 'deserve' as consequence. The PWE is not openly advocated or consciously held much any longer, but it was a large part of US history and its effects stick with us. Aside from just the people who have bought into the scaremongering about drugs, there is a significant contingent of people who see it as 'unfair' that anyone could use a drug and get even temporary happiness. Nothing offends Americans (I simply don't know how prevalent this is in other countries) more than the idea that someone else might be having an easier time than themselves. It's why many would prefer companies to go without substantive punishment for harming many people over having one person receive a large punitive judgement in court cases. The McDonald's coffee lawsuit is usually the canonical example. If McDonald's had only paid the lady actual damages, they would have simply continued their practices and harmed more people. But that is preferable to the situation where that one lady got a 'payday'. Apparently nothing is worse than the feeling that someone else has had it easier than one has had it ones self.

nafey 9y ago
Wow really explains why China bans drugs. This kind of reductive reasoning is a mere rationalization of a complex socio-political issue.
- Keronk 9y ago
  Well China does have a history with this sort of thing. The Opium wars lead to what China calls the century of humiliation which is still a defining characteristic in their global outlook. More info here : https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs
  - Veelox 9y ago
    I think the comment about China was a way to highlight that a country with no Christian back ground (and thus no history of a Protestant Work Ethic) bans drugs. It is a round about way of point out that the PWE is not the only reason drugs are illegal.
- sethrin 9y ago
  China bans drugs because the US exported their drug laws via the UN. Perhaps you could find a better example.
- L_Rahman 9y ago
  While it is a complex socio-political issue, there is a valid position that China has parallel cultural norms - political structures that maintain significant control over the private sphere, a high social premium placed on order and low individualism. It makes sense that a society with those values, along with Confucian history, would ban drugs.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
coleifer 9y ago
Dope costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were addicts. People crash cars and kill people. That's why drugs are illegal.
- rublev 9y ago
  Video games costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were always gaming. People crash cars and kill people because their attention is on their little screen. That's why video games should be illegal. You can do this with literally anything.
  - coleifer 9y ago
    That's patently absurd. You're not likely to see a gamer out there ripping and robbing to support a habit. Do people get addicted to games? Food? Sex? Whatever? Yeah sure. But by far drugs lead to more crime.
    - posixplz 9y ago
      Drugs do not lead to crime. Desperation and opportunity, the need to survive, with a lack of morality, all directly lead to crime. Drugs do not make people commit crimes. Emotions, those mental states, do however. What we need, as a country, society, and human race is to recognize the importance of treatment of the mind above all else. Reduce suffering. Sure, there will always be a degree of sadness in life, we should as an intelligent species, strive to end mental and physical suffering.
      - coleifer 9y ago
        I don't see a lot of clinically depressed people sticking guns in people's faces. Nor do I think lack of morality has anything to do with addiction. Rather than treat the mind, I believe in treating the spirit.
chrisweekly 9y ago
Mixed response to 2nd par, but agreed w/ 1st. Many years ago I read abt PWE in an awesome little book "The Hacker Work Ethic" (forward written by Linus Torvalds) and it resonated. Highly recommended.
m12k 9y ago
The Christian ethic and all that jazz that you mention dates back a long time, but the reason it's as crazy as it is in the US today is the much more recent "War on Drugs" that Nixon started: "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-r...
chewz 9y ago
Exactly. But Protestant Work Ethic doesn't make sense anymore when work is scarce and there are millions of unemployed without any prospects. So how do you avoid revolution and keep voters happy? Legalize drugs, supply computer games and VR, provide UBI.
- II2II 9y ago
  Which may be a good reason to not legalize drugs. My meager understanding of the issue is that happy people are less likely to grow dependent upon drugs. (Don't take this the wrong way. I support legalizing drugs. The social costs of the war on drugs are to high to believe that there is a net benefit.)
  - chewz 9y ago
    I have been trying to be sarcastic. Sorry. I do not support legalizing drugs, decriminalization yes. I am afraid that capitalism and greed, lobbying and 'free market' will be given a chance to make big profits from it. And put more people into addiction in result.
Ajedi32 9y ago
The reason drugs are illegal is because they are addictive. Many of them so addictive, in fact, that they can easily suck you in and destroy your life even if you resolve to only try them "just once". Some drugs like tobacco and alcohol are less addictive than most and are therefore still legal, others like whereas others like heroin are more addictive and are therefore banned.
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  You are contradicting yourself, and plain wrong.
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    Please point out the contradiction in my previous statement. As it stands, it seems to me that you're the one who's wong.
    - amigoingtodie 9y ago
      You claim drugs are illegal because they are addictive, then admit that alcohol and tobacco are addictive, yet not illegal. Furthermore, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, making it illegal at the federal level (no known medical uses), which based on your reasoning, would indicate it to be addictive. Yet, prescription opiates, which people are overdosing daily, is legal. And, you spelled 'wrong' as 'wong'.
      - Ajedi32 9y ago
        That's a needlessly pedantic interpretation of my comment. As I clearly explained with my comparison between alcohol and heroin, the point is it's a matter of degree. Less addictive substances are less likely to be banned, whereas more addictive substances are more likely to be banned. That's why tobacco isn't banned, but heroin is. I would have thought that was obvious to everyone. Apparently not. (And yes, obviously the laws aren't entirely consistent on this. They should be, but they aren't. That's not a valid refutation of my main point.)

nafey 9y ago

Wow really explains why China bans drugs. This kind of reductive reasoning is a mere rationalization of a complex socio-political issue.

Keronk 9y ago
Well China does have a history with this sort of thing. The Opium wars lead to what China calls the century of humiliation which is still a defining characteristic in their global outlook. More info here : https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs
- Veelox 9y ago
  I think the comment about China was a way to highlight that a country with no Christian back ground (and thus no history of a Protestant Work Ethic) bans drugs. It is a round about way of point out that the PWE is not the only reason drugs are illegal.
sethrin 9y ago
China bans drugs because the US exported their drug laws via the UN. Perhaps you could find a better example.
L_Rahman 9y ago
While it is a complex socio-political issue, there is a valid position that China has parallel cultural norms - political structures that maintain significant control over the private sphere, a high social premium placed on order and low individualism. It makes sense that a society with those values, along with Confucian history, would ban drugs.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

coleifer 9y ago

Dope costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were addicts. People crash cars and kill people. That's why drugs are illegal.

rublev 9y ago
Video games costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were always gaming. People crash cars and kill people because their attention is on their little screen. That's why video games should be illegal. You can do this with literally anything.
- coleifer 9y ago
  That's patently absurd. You're not likely to see a gamer out there ripping and robbing to support a habit. Do people get addicted to games? Food? Sex? Whatever? Yeah sure. But by far drugs lead to more crime.
  - posixplz 9y ago
    Drugs do not lead to crime. Desperation and opportunity, the need to survive, with a lack of morality, all directly lead to crime. Drugs do not make people commit crimes. Emotions, those mental states, do however. What we need, as a country, society, and human race is to recognize the importance of treatment of the mind above all else. Reduce suffering. Sure, there will always be a degree of sadness in life, we should as an intelligent species, strive to end mental and physical suffering.
    - coleifer 9y ago
      I don't see a lot of clinically depressed people sticking guns in people's faces. Nor do I think lack of morality has anything to do with addiction. Rather than treat the mind, I believe in treating the spirit.

chrisweekly 9y ago

Mixed response to 2nd par, but agreed w/ 1st. Many years ago I read abt PWE in an awesome little book "The Hacker Work Ethic" (forward written by Linus Torvalds) and it resonated. Highly recommended.

m12k 9y ago

The Christian ethic and all that jazz that you mention dates back a long time, but the reason it's as crazy as it is in the US today is the much more recent "War on Drugs" that Nixon started: "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-r...

chewz 9y ago

Exactly. But Protestant Work Ethic doesn't make sense anymore when work is scarce and there are millions of unemployed without any prospects. So how do you avoid revolution and keep voters happy? Legalize drugs, supply computer games and VR, provide UBI.

II2II 9y ago
Which may be a good reason to not legalize drugs. My meager understanding of the issue is that happy people are less likely to grow dependent upon drugs. (Don't take this the wrong way. I support legalizing drugs. The social costs of the war on drugs are to high to believe that there is a net benefit.)
- chewz 9y ago
  I have been trying to be sarcastic. Sorry. I do not support legalizing drugs, decriminalization yes. I am afraid that capitalism and greed, lobbying and 'free market' will be given a chance to make big profits from it. And put more people into addiction in result.

Ajedi32 9y ago

The reason drugs are illegal is because they are addictive. Many of them so addictive, in fact, that they can easily suck you in and destroy your life even if you resolve to only try them "just once". Some drugs like tobacco and alcohol are less addictive than most and are therefore still legal, others like whereas others like heroin are more addictive and are therefore banned.

amigoingtodie 9y ago
You are contradicting yourself, and plain wrong.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  Please point out the contradiction in my previous statement. As it stands, it seems to me that you're the one who's wong.
  - amigoingtodie 9y ago
    You claim drugs are illegal because they are addictive, then admit that alcohol and tobacco are addictive, yet not illegal. Furthermore, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, making it illegal at the federal level (no known medical uses), which based on your reasoning, would indicate it to be addictive. Yet, prescription opiates, which people are overdosing daily, is legal. And, you spelled 'wrong' as 'wong'.
    - Ajedi32 9y ago
      That's a needlessly pedantic interpretation of my comment. As I clearly explained with my comparison between alcohol and heroin, the point is it's a matter of degree. Less addictive substances are less likely to be banned, whereas more addictive substances are more likely to be banned. That's why tobacco isn't banned, but heroin is. I would have thought that was obvious to everyone. Apparently not. (And yes, obviously the laws aren't entirely consistent on this. They should be, but they aren't. That's not a valid refutation of my main point.)