4 ms·

The prevailing sentiment in my circle of friends is that substance addiction should be treated as a health, not a moral, issue. That lets us neatly draw the lin

The prevailing sentiment in my circle of friends is that substance addiction should be treated as a health, not a moral, issue. That lets us neatly draw the line at 'the user sought it out'. Health outcomes tend to improve under that kind of paradigm as well, so it's not just libertarian ideology either. What's the rationale for drawing the line at a particular substance?

azinman2 7y ago
Do we also allow people to seek rotten meat, ineffective medications, or not wearing seatbelts? There are known things we can do to substantially reduce harm to the public. It’s always a balancing act between a “parental gov” and individual liberty: there is no universal answer. But over time we learn as humans what we think those trade offs should be. Note I’m not necessarily for making sins illegal personally, but I am for finding ways to regulate the hell out of them.
- jacob019 7y ago
  This. Not to mention the public costs of dealing with the ill. IMO the middle ground is to restrict the marketing, not the sale.
- catalogia 7y ago
  > "Do we also allow people to seek [...] ineffective medications," Not that I think we should, but we do. Grocery stores like Whole Foods have entire aisles dedicated to snake-oil.
  - azinman2 7y ago
    FWIW those aren’t “medications,” they’re “supplements.” Regardless of the lack of regulating supplements being good or bad, it wasn’t what I meant in this case.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      It seems to me that's just wordplay used to avoid regulation. These products are marketed in a way that suggests they might be used in lieu of regulated medicines.
- curryst 7y ago
  > Do we also allow people to seek rotten meat, ineffective medications, or not wearing seatbelts? For the first two, we definitely do. No one says you can't let your meat rot before you eat it, and certain forms of rotten food are cultural delicacies. Most groceries have aisles full of ineffective junk medicine. Not wearing seatbelts I will grant you, although enforcement of those laws is generally very lax in my experience. I strongly disagree with regulating them. Consumers should be given information to make a well informed decision, and then we should butt out. You don't want to wear a seat belt? It increases your risk of dying as a result of a crash by XX%. Go for it if you are willing to take that risk. I don't feel right imposing my own personal values on someone else when their actions aren't harming others (which I know is somewhat debatable with seatbelts). Nothing makes me feel that my own values and morals are superior enough to force them on someone else.

azinman2 7y ago

Do we also allow people to seek rotten meat, ineffective medications, or not wearing seatbelts? There are known things we can do to substantially reduce harm to the public. It’s always a balancing act between a “parental gov” and individual liberty: there is no universal answer. But over time we learn as humans what we think those trade offs should be. Note I’m not necessarily for making sins illegal personally, but I am for finding ways to regulate the hell out of them.

jacob019 7y ago
This. Not to mention the public costs of dealing with the ill. IMO the middle ground is to restrict the marketing, not the sale.
catalogia 7y ago
> "Do we also allow people to seek [...] ineffective medications," Not that I think we should, but we do. Grocery stores like Whole Foods have entire aisles dedicated to snake-oil.
- azinman2 7y ago
  FWIW those aren’t “medications,” they’re “supplements.” Regardless of the lack of regulating supplements being good or bad, it wasn’t what I meant in this case.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    It seems to me that's just wordplay used to avoid regulation. These products are marketed in a way that suggests they might be used in lieu of regulated medicines.
curryst 7y ago
> Do we also allow people to seek rotten meat, ineffective medications, or not wearing seatbelts? For the first two, we definitely do. No one says you can't let your meat rot before you eat it, and certain forms of rotten food are cultural delicacies. Most groceries have aisles full of ineffective junk medicine. Not wearing seatbelts I will grant you, although enforcement of those laws is generally very lax in my experience. I strongly disagree with regulating them. Consumers should be given information to make a well informed decision, and then we should butt out. You don't want to wear a seat belt? It increases your risk of dying as a result of a crash by XX%. Go for it if you are willing to take that risk. I don't feel right imposing my own personal values on someone else when their actions aren't harming others (which I know is somewhat debatable with seatbelts). Nothing makes me feel that my own values and morals are superior enough to force them on someone else.