4 ms·
How is age not a sophisticated enough of a line (up to medical conditions and scams)? If someone has the right to vote and the right to bodily autonomy or basic
by krastanov 5y ago
How is age not a sophisticated enough of a line (up to medical conditions and scams)? If someone has the right to vote and the right to bodily autonomy or basically any of the rights in the Bill of Rights, then that person should be able to do whatever they want (biohacking on themselves or even suicide included). Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it.
Compare this to mass scams: If many people are tricked (by a person or by a mass histeria) to do something, then it makes perfect sense to have a regulatory agency step in (e.g. FTC, FDA, SEC, etc). And compare that to people with a medical disability: if someone is permanently or temporarily mentally impaired, then some of these rights are curtailed.
- rileymat2 5y ago>Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. I suspect people generally agree with this, but will extend the "affecting only themselves" a degree out. Did a Father who orphans a child due to drug use only affect themselves? Did the narco terrorists who were funded by his purchase only affect himself?
- echelon 5y agoEvery choice in life ripples through eternity. Taking a job, quitting to start a company, walking back on a contractual relationship, marrying a partner. While it's true that the direction of impact has outsized and measurable impact on children and dependents, there are other interactions we can't even begin to fathom. Barry Marshall was criticized in the 80's for his H. pylori hypothesis. Then he drank some to prove his point, and now we know the cause of peptic ulcers and several stomach cancers. mRRNA self-experimentation is undoubtably risky and I wouldn't do it myself, but it may yield dividends even if it does induce disease state or kill some of those that attempt it. I don't think we should police it. Not when you can legally buy a car and drive it off a bridge. There are far worse things a person can do.
- krastanov 5y agoI think this is a great jab at my argument and its main weakness. But I stand by it, because even in your example we have seen that countries that go for decriminalization and offer elective treatment do better. Compare Portugal's successes with decreasing hard drug use with US's failed war on drugs. Do not criminalize the things that make your society worse at scale, rather ensure the positive incentives draw your population in a better direction. I.e. carrot, not stick.
- h0l0cube 5y agoWhat you've missed with this analogy is that the supply side is always worth criminalising, or at least regulating Edit: I'll walk this back to 'is always worth regulating'
- rileymat2 5y agoThis seems like a recipe for an even bigger black market, and various other issues that will come when an organization is running illegally, because of unblocked demand. Obviously, even in cases where it is illegal to both buy and sell we still have black markets, but making it ok to buy but not sell seems like a recipe for a giant black market.
- h0l0cube 5y agoTrue, but that's an argument for regulation
- krastanov 5y agoNo, that is the exact opposite of what I said. Instead of wasting resource on criminalizing the supply size, make the demand plummet by providing more enticing options. If there is demand for the drugs, you have already failed and criminalizing the supply is a non-functional bandaid. On the other hand, sure, regulating and ensuring tax revenue comes from the vice is not a bad idea (and it works ok for gambling, alcohol, and now pot too).