3 ms·
>to at least be consistent. Also worth noting that consistency could be achieved by outlawing alcohol. In the U.S. at least, that proved an impractical solutio
by bumby 5y ago
>to at least be consistent.
Also worth noting that consistency could be achieved by outlawing alcohol. In the U.S. at least, that proved an impractical solution. So I don't think "we allow one bad thing and we can't get rid of it, so let's allow all bad things" makes a particularly compelling argument.
(FWIW, I'm generally not against legalization nor do I think all drugs are net-negative. I just find the argument as laid out to be unconvincing.)
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Also worth noting that consistency could be achieved by outlawing alcohol. In the U.S. at least, that proved an impractical solution. It was recognized as impractical fairly quickly, despite having fairly similar concrete outcomes to the drug war, for which a similar recognition has been much slower and less complete. But, again, that's just another layer of inconsistency in the same direction, not a mitigation of it.
- bumby 5y agoAgain, I'm not against legalization. But I'd like to see more concrete mitigation of the downsides. Just stating that we should aim for consistency does nothing about the blowback. "Legalize it to be consistent" seems as facile a solution as "Prohibit it because it can be dangerous" in that they ignore the complexities of implementation.