21 ms·

It is very hypocritical for some politician to tell me what I can and what I can`t put into my body. Recently in UK they enacted a law that criminalize any subs

by ssijak 8y ago

It is very hypocritical for some politician to tell me what I can and what I can`t put into my body. Recently in UK they enacted a law that criminalize any substance that changes how you feel, but with the following remark "The ban is so wide-ranging that a long list of substances such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, food and medical products will have to be given special exemptions." When you thought that you reached the limits of hypocrisy...

Nursie 8y ago
Whilst I agree with you - this doesn't even seem like the important piece any more. The ludicrous policies are killing hundreds of thousands a year and making life hell for so many more. It shouldn't even be a question about the morality of taking drugs or the hypocrisy of trying to stop it while carving out extensions any more - it's way more important than that.
claydavisss 8y ago
If you expect society to share the burden of funding your healthcare, you should expect to share oversight of your habits.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Okay, but it's actually cheaper to just not worry too much about what people are putting into their bodies and offer treatment/assistance to people that want help stopping using some drug.
- Nursie 8y ago
  > If you expect society to share the burden of funding your healthcare, you should expect to share oversight of your habits. Sure, but play this against "The legislative environment created by the War On Drugs creates such overwhelming negative externalities, in our own country and beyond, that it costs much more in terms of both tax and lives." (Actually I fundamentally disagree - health care is a common good, and society does not really get to have this oversight. If it did we'd see bans on extreme sports, for instance)
dionidium 8y ago
This is the bourgeois line on drugs, believed exclusively by people who haven't spent much time around crack and heroin addicts [0], prolonged exposure to whom eliminates the comfortable fiction that what people put into their body is their own business. [0] Or severe alcoholics, for that matter.
- shady-lady 8y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being downvoted for your viewpoint or your usage of "This is the bourgeois line on drugs".
  - dionidium 8y ago
    I suppose that's a risk one takes when using that word in modern conversation, but I literally mean it in the dictionary-definition sense (i.e. "of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes"). Feel free to substitute "middle-class" for "bourgeois" if it sounds less political or inflammatory to your ears.
- ssijak 8y ago
  Hint : Look at Portugal.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    It's a sign of abject dysfunction that you think a passing allusion to Portugal is any kind of response to what I said above. The sentiment I'm pushing against is the feel-good, free-love notion that what you put into your body is your own damn business. Recognizing the absurdity of that claim isn't a vote for criminalization or mass incarceration. Indeed, Portugal has invested massively in the kind of healthcare and drug-treatment infrastructure that's required to effectively handle the inevitable results of decriminalisation. Whatever you want to say about drugs or drug policy, the people who do them aren't just minding their own business. One way or the other, the rest of us have to respond to it. Complaints about the "hypocrisy" of attempts to reduce use simply are not serious. And, as I said above, it's a position that rarely survives prolonged interaction with actual addicts.
shady-lady 8y ago
> It is very hypocritical for some politician to tell me what I can and what I can`t put into my body. I don't quite get the hypocrisy angle. He's not making rules that apply to everybody but him. I would guess legislation around what you can and can't put into your body is around the amount of harm and suffering caused ty you(& by you) after ingesting these substances. Different people have varying vulnerability(changing throughout their lives) and more likely to seek escapism at certain points in their lives. Legislating against subtances stop them from being widely sold & readily available. Seems pretty common sense to me. (with allowances for existing(read normalised) special cases, namely: alcohol & tobacco) I can see tobacco being phased out completely in the next century.

by ssijak 8y ago

Nursie 8y ago

Whilst I agree with you - this doesn't even seem like the important piece any more. The ludicrous policies are killing hundreds of thousands a year and making life hell for so many more. It shouldn't even be a question about the morality of taking drugs or the hypocrisy of trying to stop it while carving out extensions any more - it's way more important than that.

claydavisss 8y ago

If you expect society to share the burden of funding your healthcare, you should expect to share oversight of your habits.

maxerickson 8y ago
Okay, but it's actually cheaper to just not worry too much about what people are putting into their bodies and offer treatment/assistance to people that want help stopping using some drug.
Nursie 8y ago
> If you expect society to share the burden of funding your healthcare, you should expect to share oversight of your habits. Sure, but play this against "The legislative environment created by the War On Drugs creates such overwhelming negative externalities, in our own country and beyond, that it costs much more in terms of both tax and lives." (Actually I fundamentally disagree - health care is a common good, and society does not really get to have this oversight. If it did we'd see bans on extreme sports, for instance)

dionidium 8y ago

This is the bourgeois line on drugs, believed exclusively by people who haven't spent much time around crack and heroin addicts [0], prolonged exposure to whom eliminates the comfortable fiction that what people put into their body is their own business. [0] Or severe alcoholics, for that matter.

shady-lady 8y ago
I'm not sure if you're being downvoted for your viewpoint or your usage of "This is the bourgeois line on drugs".
- dionidium 8y ago
  I suppose that's a risk one takes when using that word in modern conversation, but I literally mean it in the dictionary-definition sense (i.e. "of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes"). Feel free to substitute "middle-class" for "bourgeois" if it sounds less political or inflammatory to your ears.
ssijak 8y ago
Hint : Look at Portugal.
- dionidium 8y ago
  It's a sign of abject dysfunction that you think a passing allusion to Portugal is any kind of response to what I said above. The sentiment I'm pushing against is the feel-good, free-love notion that what you put into your body is your own damn business. Recognizing the absurdity of that claim isn't a vote for criminalization or mass incarceration. Indeed, Portugal has invested massively in the kind of healthcare and drug-treatment infrastructure that's required to effectively handle the inevitable results of decriminalisation. Whatever you want to say about drugs or drug policy, the people who do them aren't just minding their own business. One way or the other, the rest of us have to respond to it. Complaints about the "hypocrisy" of attempts to reduce use simply are not serious. And, as I said above, it's a position that rarely survives prolonged interaction with actual addicts.

shady-lady 8y ago

> It is very hypocritical for some politician to tell me what I can and what I can`t put into my body. I don't quite get the hypocrisy angle. He's not making rules that apply to everybody but him. I would guess legislation around what you can and can't put into your body is around the amount of harm and suffering caused ty you(& by you) after ingesting these substances. Different people have varying vulnerability(changing throughout their lives) and more likely to seek escapism at certain points in their lives. Legislating against subtances stop them from being widely sold & readily available. Seems pretty common sense to me. (with allowances for existing(read normalised) special cases, namely: alcohol & tobacco) I can see tobacco being phased out completely in the next century.