3 ms·
As a society we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over freedom, as long as the tradeoff is sufficiently profitable: we have seatbelt laws
by handoflixue 5y ago
As a society we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over freedom, as long as the tradeoff is sufficiently profitable: we have seatbelt laws, we did lockdowns during the pandemic, and you can be involuntarily committed for mental health.
I think a much better argument is to point at countries that decriminalized drugs and didn't see an increase in crime. If legalizing marijuana resulted in a 10x rise in crime I'd 100% for keeping it illegal
(This is all from someone who is very much AGAINST the war on drugs)
- gobrewers14 5y agoJust a few thoughts. > I think a much better argument is to point at countries that decriminalized drugs and didn't see an increase in crime. I agree. > we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over freedom Who is "we"? A majority telling a minority "we" know what's best for you at the expense of your freedom is very dangerous rhetoric. > we have seatbelt laws In this analogy, I would argue drugs = cars and seatbelts would be some safety measure on where drugs could be used (like no heroin injecting within 100 ft of a school, etc...) which seems like a reasonable restriction. But banning cars because a majority of the population thinks they are dangerous and people cannot drive them responsibly would be absurd.