4 ms·

I've never been a fan of these kinds of articles. They beg the question "Why arent we doing X?". There's a similar article about "Why aren't we stopping gambler

I've never been a fan of these kinds of articles. They beg the question "Why arent we doing X?". There's a similar article about "Why aren't we stopping gamblers from addictive behavior?" on HN's front page. They seem to share a trend: They look for legalistic controls over an individuals actions. And both attempt to say that their actions are addictive, therefore we cannot trust their actions, so we have to decide for them. I'm not comfortable with that logic. Nor am I for shoving more drugs underground. Cause that's that high taxation and controls do. I tend to go on the side of freedom, even if it's "free to be dumb". And people will do destructive things. I don't particularly like this notion of nanny state.

oxide 9y ago
People ought to get used to erring on the side of freedom. Heroin is being cut with fentanyl because heroin is super fucking illegal for nothing more than political leverage over 1960's blacks in the US. Err on the side of freedom today, save 500 million in price gouged narcan tomorrow. You can ban everything you want, lock up dealers and distributors, sue doctors, burn poppies etc all day long. You'll just step on more used syringes until each one of us has some tough fucking conversations with each other in these United States of America.
rmetzler 9y ago
These articles are written by lobbyists. They just want to open up new fronts in the discussion to hinder any change that might threaten the status quo. It's the same with NRA lobbyists, big tobacco in Africa and Asia, big oil companies and soda companies who use high fructose corn syrup.
abhi3 9y ago
> I tend to go on the side of freedom, even if it's "free to be dumb" The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting? >And both attempt to say that their actions are addictive, therefore we cannot trust their actions, so we have to decide for them. You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls.
- lowmagnet 9y ago
  DWI is a broad limitation on the use of any substance that impairs its user while driving. Texting is called "distracted driving" in some states/countries. The drugs can be made legal, the consequences would still be the same. Except in cases where someone smoked cannabis last week and it still shows up a week later as metabolites, which is only a problem because the substance is illegal in most states still.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  > The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting? But, it is. No law stops drunk driving. It is "illegal", but that's only a threat after the fact. And bringing cell phones is only a recent phenomenon.. How about people who read books while driving, or eating, or a thousand different things? You only need 1 law for this: distracted driving. Distracted can be from doing things unrelated to driving, or being high, or drunk, sleepy, or whatever. And I also have issue with "drunk driving". The .08 standard is not based in science. It's from MADD lobbying. And to be honest, if someone drives well at .08, so be it. People have different sensitivities - you should reasonably know if you're not safe. > You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls. So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either.
  - abhi3 9y ago
    >So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either. Compared to the Opium Wars where China had to go to war with Britain to prevent civilizational collapse from drug use, yes jailing peddlers of poison seems acceptable.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago

oxide 9y ago

People ought to get used to erring on the side of freedom. Heroin is being cut with fentanyl because heroin is super fucking illegal for nothing more than political leverage over 1960's blacks in the US. Err on the side of freedom today, save 500 million in price gouged narcan tomorrow. You can ban everything you want, lock up dealers and distributors, sue doctors, burn poppies etc all day long. You'll just step on more used syringes until each one of us has some tough fucking conversations with each other in these United States of America.

rmetzler 9y ago

These articles are written by lobbyists. They just want to open up new fronts in the discussion to hinder any change that might threaten the status quo. It's the same with NRA lobbyists, big tobacco in Africa and Asia, big oil companies and soda companies who use high fructose corn syrup.

abhi3 9y ago

> I tend to go on the side of freedom, even if it's "free to be dumb" The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting? >And both attempt to say that their actions are addictive, therefore we cannot trust their actions, so we have to decide for them. You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls.

lowmagnet 9y ago
DWI is a broad limitation on the use of any substance that impairs its user while driving. Texting is called "distracted driving" in some states/countries. The drugs can be made legal, the consequences would still be the same. Except in cases where someone smoked cannabis last week and it still shows up a week later as metabolites, which is only a problem because the substance is illegal in most states still.
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
> The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting? But, it is. No law stops drunk driving. It is "illegal", but that's only a threat after the fact. And bringing cell phones is only a recent phenomenon.. How about people who read books while driving, or eating, or a thousand different things? You only need 1 law for this: distracted driving. Distracted can be from doing things unrelated to driving, or being high, or drunk, sleepy, or whatever. And I also have issue with "drunk driving". The .08 standard is not based in science. It's from MADD lobbying. And to be honest, if someone drives well at .08, so be it. People have different sensitivities - you should reasonably know if you're not safe. > You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls. So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either.
- abhi3 9y ago
  >So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either. Compared to the Opium Wars where China had to go to war with Britain to prevent civilizational collapse from drug use, yes jailing peddlers of poison seems acceptable.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago