2 ms·

Citation definitely needed on that claim. Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine,

by idm 16y ago

Citation definitely needed on that claim. Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine, which is also legal.

meric 16y ago
> Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine, which is also legal. Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited too? (I am not really saying that) If sometime in the future I invented a substance that was very addictive, would cause people to have altered behaviour (i.e. be more inclined to shop for more of the drug specifically at http://meric.com http://meric.com), and ends up being taken by millions so they shop at my website every day, and one day the FDA comes out and says my drug is now banned because it is a form of 'mind control', will you be against that decision because 'it is your right to put whatever you want in your own body'? I don't see nicotine being much different, instead of buying only cigarettes from https://www.marlboro.com/ https://www.marlboro.com/ they are merely buying more cigarettes from anywhere else. I can definitely see the point of view that government shouldn't influence people's private lives. That's why I am not so quick to say I support for/against prohibiting mind-altering substances... Just saying, I'd hate the idea the that anything have influence over decisions I make, no matter if its the government, alcohol or cigarettes. (Anything, not anyone.)
- idm 16y ago
  I think we agree: autonomy is the whole point here. I'm not sure what you're arguing, but it's easy for me to say I'm 100% against the prohibition of any sort of recreational drug. The reason I mention the danger of alcohol and nicotine is to point out an inconsistency in drug policy, which purports to ban the "dangerous" drugs and (presumably) allow the "safe" ones. ...at least that's how the scheduling criteria are operationalized in the US. Clearly, that's not the way it plays out in real life, and the disaster of this is people believing the legal drugs are the safe ones. ...but I fail to see the point of your argument, because it's not hypothetical at all. There are legal, addictive drugs in wide circulation, and although I hate the fact that my best buddy smokes a pack a day, I would oppose the prohibition of tobacco... and obviously I would oppose the FDA ban in your hypothetical. ...not exactly sure where that leaves us, but I'll upvote you for taking the time to think this through.

by idm 16y ago

Citation definitely needed on that claim. Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine, which is also legal.

meric 16y ago

> Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine, which is also legal. Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited too? (I am not really saying that) If sometime in the future I invented a substance that was very addictive, would cause people to have altered behaviour (i.e. be more inclined to shop for more of the drug specifically at http://meric.com http://meric.com), and ends up being taken by millions so they shop at my website every day, and one day the FDA comes out and says my drug is now banned because it is a form of 'mind control', will you be against that decision because 'it is your right to put whatever you want in your own body'? I don't see nicotine being much different, instead of buying only cigarettes from https://www.marlboro.com/ https://www.marlboro.com/ they are merely buying more cigarettes from anywhere else. I can definitely see the point of view that government shouldn't influence people's private lives. That's why I am not so quick to say I support for/against prohibiting mind-altering substances... Just saying, I'd hate the idea the that anything have influence over decisions I make, no matter if its the government, alcohol or cigarettes. (Anything, not anyone.)

idm 16y ago
I think we agree: autonomy is the whole point here. I'm not sure what you're arguing, but it's easy for me to say I'm 100% against the prohibition of any sort of recreational drug. The reason I mention the danger of alcohol and nicotine is to point out an inconsistency in drug policy, which purports to ban the "dangerous" drugs and (presumably) allow the "safe" ones. ...at least that's how the scheduling criteria are operationalized in the US. Clearly, that's not the way it plays out in real life, and the disaster of this is people believing the legal drugs are the safe ones. ...but I fail to see the point of your argument, because it's not hypothetical at all. There are legal, addictive drugs in wide circulation, and although I hate the fact that my best buddy smokes a pack a day, I would oppose the prohibition of tobacco... and obviously I would oppose the FDA ban in your hypothetical. ...not exactly sure where that leaves us, but I'll upvote you for taking the time to think this through.