3 ms·

My only resistance to that idea is this: Passing that law would invariably result in some deaths. Sure, it would primarily be the people who had no control ove

My only resistance to that idea is this: Passing that law would invariably result in some deaths. Sure, it would primarily be the people who had no control over themselves in the face of their addictions, but making all drugs legal would cause many, many people to either overdose or to keep taking the drugs until they died from secondary effects. If that could be mediated, I am all for full legalization of all drugs, including "hard" drugs like cocaine and heroin. Other countries have done similar things and found a decrease in usage among both new and previous users, a decrease in overall drug-related deaths, a decrease in drug-related crime, and an increase in rehabilitation. I may not approve of using drugs myself, but I think what I do with myself is my business and what others do with themselves is their business. I would prefer for things to be as good as they can be with the goal of getting better, and broad scale legalization has strong potential to be a step in the right direction.

adastra22 5y ago
Not passing that law has already resulted in needless deaths (lookup the history of HIV antivirals and the FDA to see what I mean). Don't forget to account for the opportunity cost of inaction.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  I can't quite classify it but I feel that there is an ethical line between the deaths that are occurring because of a person's flaunting of a law and the deaths that would occur because of a law being changed. As a terrible analogy, if we made it against the law to wear seat belts, some people would die who would not otherwise die. Most people would continue to wear seat belts anyway as they are aware that wearing a seat belt is far safer than not wearing a seat belt. Further, it makes sense that a large portion of those people who would die would be the ones that weren't wearing seat belts to begin with regardless of the law, but it stands to reason that some percentage of people who die would be people who would have worn seat belts but chose not to because it was no longer illegal to drive without a seat belt. I feel there would be a similar outcome to mass drug legalization. Most people would have no change in their lives. Some people who were subconsciously mid-drug induced suicide would continue on and die quicker thanks to the ease of access and legalization, but there would be some people who, without the legal issues and difficulty of obtaining the drugs being an inhibitor would then choose to indulge, and some fraction of those people may overdose or otherwise harm themselves where they would have been protected by the current status quo. It's hard to navigate mentally but I feel confident in the statement even if it is not fully formed.

adastra22 5y ago

Not passing that law has already resulted in needless deaths (lookup the history of HIV antivirals and the FDA to see what I mean). Don't forget to account for the opportunity cost of inaction.

BizarroLand 5y ago
I can't quite classify it but I feel that there is an ethical line between the deaths that are occurring because of a person's flaunting of a law and the deaths that would occur because of a law being changed. As a terrible analogy, if we made it against the law to wear seat belts, some people would die who would not otherwise die. Most people would continue to wear seat belts anyway as they are aware that wearing a seat belt is far safer than not wearing a seat belt. Further, it makes sense that a large portion of those people who would die would be the ones that weren't wearing seat belts to begin with regardless of the law, but it stands to reason that some percentage of people who die would be people who would have worn seat belts but chose not to because it was no longer illegal to drive without a seat belt. I feel there would be a similar outcome to mass drug legalization. Most people would have no change in their lives. Some people who were subconsciously mid-drug induced suicide would continue on and die quicker thanks to the ease of access and legalization, but there would be some people who, without the legal issues and difficulty of obtaining the drugs being an inhibitor would then choose to indulge, and some fraction of those people may overdose or otherwise harm themselves where they would have been protected by the current status quo. It's hard to navigate mentally but I feel confident in the statement even if it is not fully formed.