4 ms·
Isn't there some friction here with regards to nationalized health care? Society at large will pay for the poor health decisions of individual citizens.
by schrectacular 8y ago
Isn'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.