7 ms·

It is not a cognitive liberty issue equally for everyone. Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others

It is not a cognitive liberty issue equally for everyone. Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do. Their agency is impaired when confronted with decisions about alcohol. Alcohol is a potentially dangerous drug that I believe should be regulated more heavily than it currently is, while I also believe that other intoxicants such as marijuana are far milder in their overall impact and should be regulated less. But in any particular case, I think that we must face the social implications of substance abuse as a real issue. I’ve talked to addicts that say that the intervention of law enforcement saved their lives. Of course this is not generally the experience for poor people or minorities. So if you are going to be more permissive in what people can legally acquire, I think that we have a moral obligation to provide intervention and support services for individuals affected by substance abuse. I don’t see a lot of people actually talking about this aspect of decriminalization in the US. Yes, blanket legalization will cure some ills but it will create many others. I don’t see any way to tell which side the weight comes down on at this point.

DataWorker 8y ago
An important factor to consider in seeking to regulate such things is the ease with which they can be produced. Marijuana is a weed and wine is fermented grape. And what about the obesity epidemic? I’m inclined to agree with your views, but there is a practical aspect that needs to balanced against the desire for more effective public policy.
godzillabrennus 8y ago
Legalize, educate, regulate, tax and treat abuse as a medical problem. Subsidize the medical treatment and sponsor research for mitigating abuse from the tax revenue. People will pay obscenely high taxes on this stuff if it’s made legal. Dismember the government apparatus setup to deprive so many of their liberties.
- grogenaut 8y ago
  We've got some non trivial percentage of America hooked on legal opioids as an experiment. That's going well. Seems smart to get another good pct hooked on h. And before you say the price will drop... My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle. So let's get everyone hooked and in debt, seems like a different route to the same place. They won't be in jail but they'll be struggling financially just the same. But they'll at least get treatment. Which we can also charge for. Apparently I've angered the libertarians who can't concieve of Any bad consequences to anything. Look I Live in Seattle and don't see any bad side to the mj legalization currently. I also think we should have heroin treatment in many areas. And opioid. Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18. I know plenty of people who use alcohol and mj responsibly. Many who don't. I have anecdotal data on opiods and lots only know one person who used h personally and that didn't go well. More for meth, most had some pretty severe problems before or because of it. But apparently I can't disagree with you, only the pure ideals are acceptable.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Prison is pretty life destroying pretty much anyone not a danger to others would be better off outside a cell. Also poor people generally aren't poor because they smoke too much marijuana it's not even remotely addictive like that.
  - RickS 8y ago
    > My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle I'm a Seattle resident. No way that's correct. The pot is way, way cheaper. Using fairly "middle class" products, percentage of a $15-20 gram that has intoxicating value is lower in dollar value than a draft beer ($6). Even focusing strictly on value products, there's no single-unit alcohol product (40oz, tall boy, etc) that can compete against the common $3 preroll.
    - buttcoinslol 8y ago
      You can get 37.5 ounces of Four Loko for $3 (1.5 cans), at 12% ABV you're getting 4.5 ounces of ethanol which is equivalent to 9 1.5 oz 80 proof shots. This will absolutely destroy you compared to a half gram preroll joint filled with shake.
- philliphaydon 8y ago
  Abuse as a medical problem??? No way. You do not allow people to take a harmful substance then say “oh and if you get sick we will pay for it”.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Sugar, etc
    - philliphaydon 8y ago
      So people in America used to cook with lard. Until someone said “oh no lard is bad people are getting fat” so they banned lard. And everything tasted like shit so they substituted lard with sugar. Now America is one of the fattest nations on earth. Go figure.
  - godzillabrennus 8y ago
    People already take it. People already get sick. Tax payers already pickup their healthcare bills.
    - philliphaydon 8y ago
      And that is wrong. The west is backwards in this regard. In the UK, Australia, NZ, you can get paid with tax payers money for choosing to not work... So someone works hard to fund your life. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to smoke. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to do drugs and get addicted.
      - godzillabrennus 8y ago
        It’s not always that simple. The opioid epidemic is largely because people use legal pain killers as a gateway drug. Think about it from an investment perspective. The addict has typically had some semblance of public education. That cost tax payers money. Let’s call it $40k over 18 years (12 grades). That investment needs to be recouped by society for it to pay off. Now this person has gotten addicted to drugs. We could do nothing and they might commit crimes to fund their habit and hurt innocent people but then we have to imprison them at great cost to society and we lose more potential tax revenue and productivity from the potential loss of life of victims. We could leave the addicts alone and hope they die peacefully from their addiction, knowing we lose the investment (not to mention it calls into question our morality for letting someone die when we have the resources to save them). In reality though addicts get more desperate as they get more addicted and are more likely to turn to crime. We could be proactive and imprison them at great cost to society for being addicts. During which time they gain an education of criminal behavior that helps them fall deeper into criminal activity to support their addiction. Or we could realize that we just need to treat addicts as medical patients who can be rehabilitated if given proper treatment. This costs society money up front but helps rehabilitate addicts so they can become productive citizens again. This is not revolutionary.
pmoriarty 8y ago
"Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do. Their agency is impaired when confronted with decisions about alcohol." I'd really like to see some studies that show this is the case. Even more, I'd like to see some studies that show this is the case for all the drugs that are currently kept illegal due to reasoning of this sort. Plenty of drugs that are illegal, like psychedelics, aren't addictive. So such reasoning, even if true for certain other drugs, should not keep the drugs that aren't addictive from being made legal. As far as alcohol is concerned, are you in favor of going back to Prohibition? Because that's the state that many other drugs are in.
- flatline 8y ago
  This is a starting point regarding alcoholism and impaired judgment: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co... There are genetic components to many people’s drinking disorders, but of course everyone is different and the causes of addiction are complex. Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction. I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of “legalize it” is irresponsible.
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    "This is a starting point regarding alcoholism and impaired judgment" There's nothing in there about people being born alcoholics. Even if there was, it's not a scientific study, nor does it cite any. "There are genetic components to many people's drinking disorders" Where is the scientific evidence for this? "Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction." There are so many urban myths surrounding drugs and drug addiction. I really would think twice before trusting what I hear through the grapevine. "I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of "legalize it" is irresponsible." So if prohibition is not the answer for you, and legalization isn't either, what is? What exactly do you propose?
kabdib 8y ago
On the other hand, regulation of alcohol has not gone well historically, with people arguably worse off with very stringent controls. Artificial scarcity has resulted in predictable increases in black markets and crime, reduction in safety, and boosts to the prison industrial complex. We seem to have reached a middle ground, here in most parts of the US. Alcohol is taxed and regulated, the products are relatively safe (no worries about methanol poisoning), and the black market is quite small.
- opportune 8y ago
  Effective regulation on alcohol has an upper limit due to how easy it is to make. Cannabis has this too, but you still need either a place with visible sunlight (which can probably be easily seen) or an indoor place using a lot of electricity/producing a lot of heat, plus the seeds. You only need sugar and yeast to make alcohol, and you can do it in a well hidden place without using a lot of energy
  - grandmczeb 8y ago
    It’s trivially easy to make enough weed for personal consumption; certainly much easier than making alcohol (safely). The thing that’s hard is growing enough to sell.
    - tnli 8y ago
      You've newer brewed your own beer, cider, wine or sugar wine, have you?
      - ModernMech 8y ago
        You've never grown weed, have you? It's called weed for a reason.
    - petraeus 8y ago
      Both are easy to make.
jtmcmc 8y ago
"if you are going to be more permissive in what people can legally acquire, I think that we have a moral obligation to provide intervention and support services for individuals affected by substance abuse. I don’t see a lot of people actually talking about this aspect of decriminalization in the US." Actually most people involved in the activism and policy front talk about this all the time. Some examples include citing the portugal diversion panels following decriminalization or the safe injection sites and needle exchange sites in the czech republic again following decriminalization there or insite/onsite the colocated safe injection site and rehab center in vancouver as models for the US to follow for harm reduction. In addition other people in the US are making harm reduction fact based high school drug education curricula as a way to educate people about drugs.
yrbnkrpt 8y ago
The same morally bankrupt argument can be made for pedophilia, murder, rape, and just about any human desire. Actual evidence, such as Portugal, also prove you conclusively wrong. Go peddle your drivel elsewhere.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do. This is a patronizing and disempowering statement with no scientific basis.
colordrops 8y ago
Many diabetics are born that way. Shall we ban sugar? Alcoholism is a disease, not a crime.
wavegeek 8y ago
> we must face the social implications of substance abuse True. But we must also face up to the costs of regulation. The illegality of recreational drugs delivers $1 trillion into the hands of organized crime per annum, for example. The corruption, the adulterated product, the incentives to hook people, destruction of whole Latin American countries, etc etc. I am not accusing you of this, but there is often an implicit assumption that regulations can be put in place for no cost. An assumption that is often wildly wrong.
paublyrne 8y ago
I can't disagree with your position more, I'm afraid. If the choice is between allowing access for all or access none, I think we need to swallow the bitter pill and, accepting that some will suffer, choose the latter. Out of curiosity, would you support a liberalization of drugs if we were able to operate a system of selective prohibition, where alcoholics and drug addicts could have access revoked?
- pixl97 8y ago
  You simply can't do what you suggest. We tried banning alcohol once. It did reduce the number of alcoholics. It also created massive organized crime syndicates that routinely murdered people. Banning vice always creates black markets, those markets tend to have issues spilling violence into the society around them.

DataWorker 8y ago

An important factor to consider in seeking to regulate such things is the ease with which they can be produced. Marijuana is a weed and wine is fermented grape. And what about the obesity epidemic? I’m inclined to agree with your views, but there is a practical aspect that needs to balanced against the desire for more effective public policy.

godzillabrennus 8y ago

Legalize, educate, regulate, tax and treat abuse as a medical problem. Subsidize the medical treatment and sponsor research for mitigating abuse from the tax revenue. People will pay obscenely high taxes on this stuff if it’s made legal. Dismember the government apparatus setup to deprive so many of their liberties.

grogenaut 8y ago
We've got some non trivial percentage of America hooked on legal opioids as an experiment. That's going well. Seems smart to get another good pct hooked on h. And before you say the price will drop... My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle. So let's get everyone hooked and in debt, seems like a different route to the same place. They won't be in jail but they'll be struggling financially just the same. But they'll at least get treatment. Which we can also charge for. Apparently I've angered the libertarians who can't concieve of Any bad consequences to anything. Look I Live in Seattle and don't see any bad side to the mj legalization currently. I also think we should have heroin treatment in many areas. And opioid. Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18. I know plenty of people who use alcohol and mj responsibly. Many who don't. I have anecdotal data on opiods and lots only know one person who used h personally and that didn't go well. More for meth, most had some pretty severe problems before or because of it. But apparently I can't disagree with you, only the pure ideals are acceptable.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Prison is pretty life destroying pretty much anyone not a danger to others would be better off outside a cell. Also poor people generally aren't poor because they smoke too much marijuana it's not even remotely addictive like that.
- RickS 8y ago
  > My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle I'm a Seattle resident. No way that's correct. The pot is way, way cheaper. Using fairly "middle class" products, percentage of a $15-20 gram that has intoxicating value is lower in dollar value than a draft beer ($6). Even focusing strictly on value products, there's no single-unit alcohol product (40oz, tall boy, etc) that can compete against the common $3 preroll.
  - buttcoinslol 8y ago
    You can get 37.5 ounces of Four Loko for $3 (1.5 cans), at 12% ABV you're getting 4.5 ounces of ethanol which is equivalent to 9 1.5 oz 80 proof shots. This will absolutely destroy you compared to a half gram preroll joint filled with shake.
philliphaydon 8y ago
Abuse as a medical problem??? No way. You do not allow people to take a harmful substance then say “oh and if you get sick we will pay for it”.
- acct1771 8y ago
  Sugar, etc
  - philliphaydon 8y ago
    So people in America used to cook with lard. Until someone said “oh no lard is bad people are getting fat” so they banned lard. And everything tasted like shit so they substituted lard with sugar. Now America is one of the fattest nations on earth. Go figure.
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  People already take it. People already get sick. Tax payers already pickup their healthcare bills.
  - philliphaydon 8y ago
    And that is wrong. The west is backwards in this regard. In the UK, Australia, NZ, you can get paid with tax payers money for choosing to not work... So someone works hard to fund your life. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to smoke. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to do drugs and get addicted.
    - godzillabrennus 8y ago
      It’s not always that simple. The opioid epidemic is largely because people use legal pain killers as a gateway drug. Think about it from an investment perspective. The addict has typically had some semblance of public education. That cost tax payers money. Let’s call it $40k over 18 years (12 grades). That investment needs to be recouped by society for it to pay off. Now this person has gotten addicted to drugs. We could do nothing and they might commit crimes to fund their habit and hurt innocent people but then we have to imprison them at great cost to society and we lose more potential tax revenue and productivity from the potential loss of life of victims. We could leave the addicts alone and hope they die peacefully from their addiction, knowing we lose the investment (not to mention it calls into question our morality for letting someone die when we have the resources to save them). In reality though addicts get more desperate as they get more addicted and are more likely to turn to crime. We could be proactive and imprison them at great cost to society for being addicts. During which time they gain an education of criminal behavior that helps them fall deeper into criminal activity to support their addiction. Or we could realize that we just need to treat addicts as medical patients who can be rehabilitated if given proper treatment. This costs society money up front but helps rehabilitate addicts so they can become productive citizens again. This is not revolutionary.

pmoriarty 8y ago

"Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do. Their agency is impaired when confronted with decisions about alcohol." I'd really like to see some studies that show this is the case. Even more, I'd like to see some studies that show this is the case for all the drugs that are currently kept illegal due to reasoning of this sort. Plenty of drugs that are illegal, like psychedelics, aren't addictive. So such reasoning, even if true for certain other drugs, should not keep the drugs that aren't addictive from being made legal. As far as alcohol is concerned, are you in favor of going back to Prohibition? Because that's the state that many other drugs are in.

flatline 8y ago
This is a starting point regarding alcoholism and impaired judgment: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co... There are genetic components to many people’s drinking disorders, but of course everyone is different and the causes of addiction are complex. Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction. I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of “legalize it” is irresponsible.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  "This is a starting point regarding alcoholism and impaired judgment" There's nothing in there about people being born alcoholics. Even if there was, it's not a scientific study, nor does it cite any. "There are genetic components to many people's drinking disorders" Where is the scientific evidence for this? "Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction." There are so many urban myths surrounding drugs and drug addiction. I really would think twice before trusting what I hear through the grapevine. "I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of "legalize it" is irresponsible." So if prohibition is not the answer for you, and legalization isn't either, what is? What exactly do you propose?

kabdib 8y ago

On the other hand, regulation of alcohol has not gone well historically, with people arguably worse off with very stringent controls. Artificial scarcity has resulted in predictable increases in black markets and crime, reduction in safety, and boosts to the prison industrial complex. We seem to have reached a middle ground, here in most parts of the US. Alcohol is taxed and regulated, the products are relatively safe (no worries about methanol poisoning), and the black market is quite small.

opportune 8y ago
Effective regulation on alcohol has an upper limit due to how easy it is to make. Cannabis has this too, but you still need either a place with visible sunlight (which can probably be easily seen) or an indoor place using a lot of electricity/producing a lot of heat, plus the seeds. You only need sugar and yeast to make alcohol, and you can do it in a well hidden place without using a lot of energy
- grandmczeb 8y ago
  It’s trivially easy to make enough weed for personal consumption; certainly much easier than making alcohol (safely). The thing that’s hard is growing enough to sell.
  - tnli 8y ago
    You've newer brewed your own beer, cider, wine or sugar wine, have you?
    - ModernMech 8y ago
      You've never grown weed, have you? It's called weed for a reason.
  - petraeus 8y ago
    Both are easy to make.

jtmcmc 8y ago

"if you are going to be more permissive in what people can legally acquire, I think that we have a moral obligation to provide intervention and support services for individuals affected by substance abuse. I don’t see a lot of people actually talking about this aspect of decriminalization in the US." Actually most people involved in the activism and policy front talk about this all the time. Some examples include citing the portugal diversion panels following decriminalization or the safe injection sites and needle exchange sites in the czech republic again following decriminalization there or insite/onsite the colocated safe injection site and rehab center in vancouver as models for the US to follow for harm reduction. In addition other people in the US are making harm reduction fact based high school drug education curricula as a way to educate people about drugs.

yrbnkrpt 8y ago

The same morally bankrupt argument can be made for pedophilia, murder, rape, and just about any human desire. Actual evidence, such as Portugal, also prove you conclusively wrong. Go peddle your drivel elsewhere.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

>Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do. This is a patronizing and disempowering statement with no scientific basis.

colordrops 8y ago

Many diabetics are born that way. Shall we ban sugar? Alcoholism is a disease, not a crime.

wavegeek 8y ago

> we must face the social implications of substance abuse True. But we must also face up to the costs of regulation. The illegality of recreational drugs delivers $1 trillion into the hands of organized crime per annum, for example. The corruption, the adulterated product, the incentives to hook people, destruction of whole Latin American countries, etc etc. I am not accusing you of this, but there is often an implicit assumption that regulations can be put in place for no cost. An assumption that is often wildly wrong.

paublyrne 8y ago

I can't disagree with your position more, I'm afraid. If the choice is between allowing access for all or access none, I think we need to swallow the bitter pill and, accepting that some will suffer, choose the latter. Out of curiosity, would you support a liberalization of drugs if we were able to operate a system of selective prohibition, where alcoholics and drug addicts could have access revoked?

pixl97 8y ago
You simply can't do what you suggest. We tried banning alcohol once. It did reduce the number of alcoholics. It also created massive organized crime syndicates that routinely murdered people. Banning vice always creates black markets, those markets tend to have issues spilling violence into the society around them.