5 ms·
I have a very simple world view which, I guess, could be considered a radically liberal one: everyone can do as they please as long as it doesn't tread on the s
by chx 8y ago
I have a very simple world view which, I guess, could be considered a radically liberal one: everyone can do as they please as long as it doesn't tread on the same rights of another person. You want to inject, snort or sniff something? Go ahead! It's your body, after all. Neither I, nor any government should have anything to say about this. Obviously, you should not operate a vehicle while intoxicated and we need to have a conversation on who pays how much for health care -- but are we going to punish obese people too...? So that's a more complicated conversation but in itself no drug use should be criminal.
Along these lines I only have one question: why only cannabis? (I am Canadian.)
- schrectacular 8y agoIsn't there some friction here with regards to nationalized health care? Society at large will pay for the poor health decisions of individual citizens.
- stanmancan 8y agoI’m honestly curious how many people don’t do drugs solely because it’s illegal? How many people are thinking “I’d love to try meth; if only it were legal!”
- Afton 8y agoRelated: I'd take steroids if I could do it legally under the supervision of an endocrinologist, with products that have all the audit-trails of modern pharmacology (rather than "Bob's basement grow juice"). But the alternative seems too risky to me, especially since it's illegal and the consequences of being caught in my case are quite severe.
- stanmancan 8y agoTrue but would that have any effect on health care? I was more specifically referring to people using hard drugs because it’s no longer illegal.
- spiralx 8y agoJudging from places where decriminalisation has been introduced, there is very little overall change after a small bump immediately afterwards. As you say, most people who want to and aren't prevented from doing so by e.g. work requirements are already doing so given the prevalence of drugs.
- elif 8y agoIf cannabis use results in higher health costs. However, the preponderance of research suggests a null hypothesis at worst and a reduction in cancer rates and opiate dependency at best.
- dgacmu 8y agoAnd more: If it results in higher health care costs than the savings realized in law enforcement, judicial proceedings, and prisons.
- Rebelgecko 8y agoThey're asking about legalizing other drugs with more severe health and societal impacts (potentially meth, heroin, PCP, etc)
- bitcoinisqueen 8y agoHigher health costs matter insofar as the gov't steals at gunpoint your income (via taxation) and redistributes it. Remove coerced theft (taxes) then the healthcare cost argument is not a problem. In fact, it will be a good thing if people screw up their bodies and die prematurely because it means they will acquire less assets and basically are socializing their future potential into the ones that are not so dumb to ruin their bodies.
- teachrdan 8y agoFair point, but you could say the same thing about skiing or any other potentially risky human activity. The point of society isn't to minimize health care costs but to maximize happiness.
- foobarrio 8y agoIf you're going to reason about the effects of this the collective society you must also consider the cost/benefits of continued prohibition to the society as well. We are already paying for the decisions of the state to imprison people under prohibition. Is this cost more or less than the cost incurred to national healthcare of individuals poor health decisions?
- 33degrees 8y agoIn principle, it’s mostly other consumers of canabis who will pay, via a “sin tax”. That’s already the case with cigarettes and alcohol.
- draw_down 8y agoYou’re right, that is simple. Perhaps one might even say simplistic. But I think that’s actually to the point here; there aren’t any very good arguments in favor of prohibition.
- freehunter 8y agoI think that would be a classically liberal view rather than a radically liberal one. As in, French Revolution type of classical.
- bzmwillemsen 8y agoThe opposing view is that the people of a country have a responsibility to protect every citizen of their country. By enacting prohibition on certain substances we attempt to protect our citizen from that substance so they can live a more full life. I do agree that drugs should be decriminalized and that the money we spend on enforcement should be instead spent on public education and rehabilitation to prevent people using them and help people stop using them.
- olalonde 8y agoThat's also typically the libertarian position (e.g. there shouldn't be victimless crimes).
- pm90 8y agoBecause of its popularity and its relatively benign effects. It isn't a drug that will induce addiction or cause long term health damage (well... that we know of). And it certainly seems much less harmful than the other psychoactive drug that we have legalized (alcohol). But I think popularity is probably the biggest factor. Its when you see your own family/friends' family being destroyed by criminal convictions resulting from marijuana use does it create a strong push to legalize the stuff.
- jherdman 8y ago> why only cannabis? You've got to start somewhere. Bear in mind legalization didn't pass with sweeping support, the Conservative right is still largely opposed.
- Koshkin 8y ago> you should not But (what if) there's a correlation...