4 ms·

I think libertarians under estimate the good that can come from regulation. Regulation can protect people before the bad thing happens. If the drug kills you,

by kablamo 16y ago

I think libertarians under estimate the good that can come from regulation. Regulation can protect people before the bad thing happens. If the drug kills you, your family can take that company to court and get them shut down, but you are already dead and that sucks. On the other hand, I suspect that over regulation by the US FDA has killed a large number of people by making it too difficult for new medicines to get to market. Any choice in the prohibition/regulation debate is going result in some dead people. The goal is to find the point on the spectrum with the least number of deaths. I don't know exactly where that is, but I do feel over regulation is destroying Mexico and other parts of South America and we should move towards less regulation.

jacoblyles 16y ago
Keeping the conversation within the domain of the current article, there is no policy goal to mitigate harm from recreational drugs. If a drug makes people feel good it will be outlawed whether it is completely harmless or very dangerous. This has the side effect of pushing some people from relatively harmless but illegal drugs whose effects are well understood to potentially harmful new drugs that are not yet illegal. No lives will be saved by this policy, which isn't surprising since the goal is not harm mitigation (despite the rhetoric of government officials) but keeping people from consuming psychoactive substances that make them feel good. Are far as FDA regulation vs. liability is concerned - you cannot outlaw the production of drugs which will kill some people. All you can do is provide incentives for drug makers to research the risks of their products as thoroughly as possible. Drugs are still approved by the FDA that kill people despite the fact that the FDA approval process is stupidly expensive. There is no perfect world. The goal of policy should be to reduce risk in a cost-effective way. Harm reduction should be balanced with the corresponding damage regulation does to life-saving medical research. After we weigh various policies we may find that the status quo is suboptimal. As rational people we should keep our minds on the right trade-offs and the right metrics. Many people are comfortable with the idea of a regulatory state regardless of its effectiveness - it makes them feel safe. We should not let these emotions of safety influence our thinking overmuch.
- patrickk 16y ago
  " If a drug makes people feel good it will be outlawed whether it is completely harmless or very dangerous." " ....the goal is not harm mitigation (despite the rhetoric of government officials) but keeping people from consuming psychoactive substances that make them feel good." Supporting evidence? Those are some dramatic claims you are making. I felt good with morphine in my system after an operation, and felt a lot worse without it once the effects wore off. Also, a nice cold beer is just the ticket after a long week. No danger of those being banned anytime soon.
  - abalashov 16y ago
    One easy explanation is that a cold beer doesn't make you feel as good, and morphine is administered only in a controlled environment.
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    Marijuana is safer than alcohol or tobacco, and it's certainly safer than whatever recreational substance some guy is cooking up in his lab. Why is it illegal? Have you seen "Reefer Madness"? Scientific piece of work, that. Meanwhile, some kids at Georgetown University face 20 years in prison for making an illegal but less intense version of a drug which is legal in 47 states: http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/26/the-georgetown-drug-lab-bust-m http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/26/the-georgetown-drug-lab-bu.... A huge short-term risk from most recreational drugs is simply not knowing what is in them, especially if they come in a pill, powder, or liquid form. And that is an effect of prohibition, not the drugs themselves. Of course government officials will pontificate on the horrors of drugs every time prohibition kills another kid that doesn't know what is in his ecstasy.

by kablamo 16y ago

jacoblyles 16y ago

Keeping the conversation within the domain of the current article, there is no policy goal to mitigate harm from recreational drugs. If a drug makes people feel good it will be outlawed whether it is completely harmless or very dangerous. This has the side effect of pushing some people from relatively harmless but illegal drugs whose effects are well understood to potentially harmful new drugs that are not yet illegal. No lives will be saved by this policy, which isn't surprising since the goal is not harm mitigation (despite the rhetoric of government officials) but keeping people from consuming psychoactive substances that make them feel good. Are far as FDA regulation vs. liability is concerned - you cannot outlaw the production of drugs which will kill some people. All you can do is provide incentives for drug makers to research the risks of their products as thoroughly as possible. Drugs are still approved by the FDA that kill people despite the fact that the FDA approval process is stupidly expensive. There is no perfect world. The goal of policy should be to reduce risk in a cost-effective way. Harm reduction should be balanced with the corresponding damage regulation does to life-saving medical research. After we weigh various policies we may find that the status quo is suboptimal. As rational people we should keep our minds on the right trade-offs and the right metrics. Many people are comfortable with the idea of a regulatory state regardless of its effectiveness - it makes them feel safe. We should not let these emotions of safety influence our thinking overmuch.

patrickk 16y ago
" If a drug makes people feel good it will be outlawed whether it is completely harmless or very dangerous." " ....the goal is not harm mitigation (despite the rhetoric of government officials) but keeping people from consuming psychoactive substances that make them feel good." Supporting evidence? Those are some dramatic claims you are making. I felt good with morphine in my system after an operation, and felt a lot worse without it once the effects wore off. Also, a nice cold beer is just the ticket after a long week. No danger of those being banned anytime soon.
- abalashov 16y ago
  One easy explanation is that a cold beer doesn't make you feel as good, and morphine is administered only in a controlled environment.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  Marijuana is safer than alcohol or tobacco, and it's certainly safer than whatever recreational substance some guy is cooking up in his lab. Why is it illegal? Have you seen "Reefer Madness"? Scientific piece of work, that. Meanwhile, some kids at Georgetown University face 20 years in prison for making an illegal but less intense version of a drug which is legal in 47 states: http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/26/the-georgetown-drug-lab-bust-m http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/26/the-georgetown-drug-lab-bu.... A huge short-term risk from most recreational drugs is simply not knowing what is in them, especially if they come in a pill, powder, or liquid form. And that is an effect of prohibition, not the drugs themselves. Of course government officials will pontificate on the horrors of drugs every time prohibition kills another kid that doesn't know what is in his ecstasy.