4 ms·

I am constantly in awe that we live in a society which has no clue what consciousness is or when it begins in a human and despite that we've made abortion legal

I am constantly in awe that we live in a society which has no clue what consciousness is or when it begins in a human and despite that we've made abortion legal while at the same time making getting high and putting what you want into your own body illegal to the point of executing offenders. How (and why) is it that almost the entire world is dancing to the same tune with regards to the War on Drugs? I'm convinced that the people who keep drugs illegal are profiting immensely from these policies. Otherwise, why wouldn't we arrest people only when they commit a victim-ful crime or potentially victim-ful crime, e.g. arresting people for drunk driving rather than just for drinking...

mc32 6y ago
Other places maybe, but Singapore is one place where I think they do it out of conviction and aren’t doing it for some corrupt profit motive. They pay politicians (members of the cabinet) a good salary to make corruption less attractive.
tomohawk 6y ago
Legalize drugs and let people do what they want and be responsible for their own actions. -or- Have a welfare state Pick one. You can't have a welfare state and at the same time let people do whatever they want with their bodies, because the cost will be borne by everyone.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  That makes some sense, but I don't see why I have to pick one. How do you feel about making it illegal to generate new humans (have babies) and do drugs if you're on welfare? I don't see why it's logical that we can only enforce the law for everybody or nobody. Anyway, whatever we have now is not working. Drugs are illegal but I can still get them.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >the cost will be borne by everyone This is how a welfare state works in all scenarios. The question is not "is there a cost", but "how high is the cost". Your comment is written under the assumption that legalizing drugs would create a cost that is too high, but you don't actually say that or explain why you think that.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Yet in the netherlands this isn't a problem In the UK Cigarette and Alcohol are legal, and lead to lots of expense in both health and policing. Rock climbing is also legal, and leads to health and mountain rescue costs. Driving is legal, and leads to health and police costs - and often the health costs are lives taken from people who weren't driving in the first place All three can lead to other costs of social security - crash a car, end up with the governemnt paying sick pay. Have drunk sex, end up with child benefits and education costs for 18 years, etc.
- philipkglass 6y ago
  I would expect the financial costs of providing a welfare state to decrease if you offered drug addicts their choice of addiction treatment or free drugs. Right now addicts are pushed toward treatment even if they don't want it. Common street drugs are inexpensive to manufacture. Treatment services are subject to Baumol's cost disease. Treatments are also unlikely to permanently alter behaviors of people who are being pushed toward behavioral changes rather than spontaneously seeking to change. The state could buy an addict a 40 year supply of opiates (wholesale) at the same cost as 3 months of outpatient rehab. Incarceration is even more expensive than outpatient treatment.
  - tomohawk 6y ago
    That is your choice of what the state's treatment ought to be. You see how drug dependence leads to dependence on the state? How the state becomes a drug dealer? And the family of that addict will still suffer. That requires yet more state support. This ends up with a system where drug dependence is subsidized by the state and taxpayers. Things that are subsidized tend to increase. But the mechanism by which the state will intervene may very well be different once the cost of that approach becomes known, and people who are working and paying taxes decide they want the mechanism to be different.

mc32 6y ago

Other places maybe, but Singapore is one place where I think they do it out of conviction and aren’t doing it for some corrupt profit motive. They pay politicians (members of the cabinet) a good salary to make corruption less attractive.

tomohawk 6y ago

Legalize drugs and let people do what they want and be responsible for their own actions. -or- Have a welfare state Pick one. You can't have a welfare state and at the same time let people do whatever they want with their bodies, because the cost will be borne by everyone.

wayneftw 6y ago
That makes some sense, but I don't see why I have to pick one. How do you feel about making it illegal to generate new humans (have babies) and do drugs if you're on welfare? I don't see why it's logical that we can only enforce the law for everybody or nobody. Anyway, whatever we have now is not working. Drugs are illegal but I can still get them.
happytoexplain 6y ago
>the cost will be borne by everyone This is how a welfare state works in all scenarios. The question is not "is there a cost", but "how high is the cost". Your comment is written under the assumption that legalizing drugs would create a cost that is too high, but you don't actually say that or explain why you think that.
iso1631 6y ago
Yet in the netherlands this isn't a problem In the UK Cigarette and Alcohol are legal, and lead to lots of expense in both health and policing. Rock climbing is also legal, and leads to health and mountain rescue costs. Driving is legal, and leads to health and police costs - and often the health costs are lives taken from people who weren't driving in the first place All three can lead to other costs of social security - crash a car, end up with the governemnt paying sick pay. Have drunk sex, end up with child benefits and education costs for 18 years, etc.
philipkglass 6y ago
I would expect the financial costs of providing a welfare state to decrease if you offered drug addicts their choice of addiction treatment or free drugs. Right now addicts are pushed toward treatment even if they don't want it. Common street drugs are inexpensive to manufacture. Treatment services are subject to Baumol's cost disease. Treatments are also unlikely to permanently alter behaviors of people who are being pushed toward behavioral changes rather than spontaneously seeking to change. The state could buy an addict a 40 year supply of opiates (wholesale) at the same cost as 3 months of outpatient rehab. Incarceration is even more expensive than outpatient treatment.
- tomohawk 6y ago
  That is your choice of what the state's treatment ought to be. You see how drug dependence leads to dependence on the state? How the state becomes a drug dealer? And the family of that addict will still suffer. That requires yet more state support. This ends up with a system where drug dependence is subsidized by the state and taxpayers. Things that are subsidized tend to increase. But the mechanism by which the state will intervene may very well be different once the cost of that approach becomes known, and people who are working and paying taxes decide they want the mechanism to be different.