4 ms·

> I don't understand why we allow them. because some people like them. Should we ban Alcohol, fast food and sugar as well?

by sumedh 8y ago

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
People like cocaine too; enjoyment of something isn't grounds to keep it legal. Smoking (and alcohol) just can't be made illegal now; the US tried that for a couple of years, and all it managed to do was give rise to organized crime and illegal (and dangerous) manufacture of alcohol. In my country, smoking and alcohol are more passively discouraged; high taxes, a ban on advertising, strict age checks, and (for smoking, lately) shocking imagery, removal of brands, removal of any kind of interesting packaging, and (most recently) a ban on displaying it. I mean I'd still be in favor of outright banning it already, because all of these measures are just idk, weird, but at the same time criminalising it would cause more problems than the current measures.
- sumedh 8y ago
  Cocaine should made legal too, with all the measures which you listed. If people like something, they will try anything to get it, if its illegal is just goes underground.
  - dingo_bat 8y ago
    I don't understand this logic. We tax alcohol and cigarettes. We ban cocaine. And look at the result: hundreds of millions addicted to smoking, but almost zero usage of cocaine. Looks like a ban is a good way to curtail usage. Which is what we want, right?
    - chillacy 8y ago
      > In the United States, the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that 35.3 million Americans aged 12 and older reported having used cocaine. 10% of the population is hardly "almost zero". I'd also question the premise that it's "what we want". On one hand I'm not sure the drug wars (money into the cartels, families broken up by incarceration, the cycle of drugs leading to violence) was worth it. On the other hand I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't do to themselves. Drugs are largely a victimless crime.
    - sumedh 8y ago
      > but almost zero usage of cocaine. This is where the disconnect happens, since you dont see people using cocaine you assume that the ban is working. Meanwhile people who really want it, can get it with money or their bodies (women). Just because you dont see it does not mean its not happening.
      - dingo_bat 8y ago
        It's still insignificant compared to smokers.
        sumedh 8y ago
        Is it almost zero?
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  That's why you tax it. The benefits of taxing vices and other negative externalities like single-use plastic items is multifaceted: the consumer will start to think twice about the added cost, the firm providing the item is incentivized to look at alternative methods, and the government gets additional tax revenue (that ideally goes toward the damage that the item does to society/environment/etc). It's not the state's job to tell me what I can and cannot do. They should, however, nudge me toward what they'd prefer.

> I don't understand why we allow them. because some people like them. Should we ban Alcohol, fast food and sugar as well?

by sumedh 8y ago

> I don't understand why we allow them. because some people like them. Should we ban Alcohol, fast food and sugar as well?

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

People like cocaine too; enjoyment of something isn't grounds to keep it legal. Smoking (and alcohol) just can't be made illegal now; the US tried that for a couple of years, and all it managed to do was give rise to organized crime and illegal (and dangerous) manufacture of alcohol. In my country, smoking and alcohol are more passively discouraged; high taxes, a ban on advertising, strict age checks, and (for smoking, lately) shocking imagery, removal of brands, removal of any kind of interesting packaging, and (most recently) a ban on displaying it. I mean I'd still be in favor of outright banning it already, because all of these measures are just idk, weird, but at the same time criminalising it would cause more problems than the current measures.

sumedh 8y ago
Cocaine should made legal too, with all the measures which you listed. If people like something, they will try anything to get it, if its illegal is just goes underground.
- dingo_bat 8y ago
  I don't understand this logic. We tax alcohol and cigarettes. We ban cocaine. And look at the result: hundreds of millions addicted to smoking, but almost zero usage of cocaine. Looks like a ban is a good way to curtail usage. Which is what we want, right?
  - chillacy 8y ago
    > In the United States, the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that 35.3 million Americans aged 12 and older reported having used cocaine. 10% of the population is hardly "almost zero". I'd also question the premise that it's "what we want". On one hand I'm not sure the drug wars (money into the cartels, families broken up by incarceration, the cycle of drugs leading to violence) was worth it. On the other hand I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't do to themselves. Drugs are largely a victimless crime.
  - sumedh 8y ago
    > but almost zero usage of cocaine. This is where the disconnect happens, since you dont see people using cocaine you assume that the ban is working. Meanwhile people who really want it, can get it with money or their bodies (women). Just because you dont see it does not mean its not happening.
    - dingo_bat 8y ago
      It's still insignificant compared to smokers.
      - sumedh 8y ago
        Is it almost zero?
Dirlewanger 8y ago
That's why you tax it. The benefits of taxing vices and other negative externalities like single-use plastic items is multifaceted: the consumer will start to think twice about the added cost, the firm providing the item is incentivized to look at alternative methods, and the government gets additional tax revenue (that ideally goes toward the damage that the item does to society/environment/etc). It's not the state's job to tell me what I can and cannot do. They should, however, nudge me toward what they'd prefer.