5 ms·

It's not obviously false either - it's at least arguably true. When I said fiscally lucrative, I was admitting there may be a certain profit to legalizing these

It's not obviously false either - it's at least arguably true. When I said fiscally lucrative, I was admitting there may be a certain profit to legalizing these substances. However, it's socially irresponsible. I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them.

robotresearcher 15y ago
"clearly adverse narcotics" How are they clearly adverse? Why was it not clear before the middle of the 20th century? Why is it not clear in other countries? Why was alcohol "clearly adverse" in the early 20th century in the US? What's the evidence that making drugs illegal has net benefits to society? It is very, very expensive and unhealthy to lock up so many young people for drug offenses. Illegal drugs do a lot of harm, but so do alcohol, cigarettes and obesity. If narcotics were legal, we would sadly continue to lose good people to them. But the evidence from Portugal* suggests this would be not more than we already do. And we would lose far fewer people to prison, drug-related violence and the accidents and diseases due to the conditions associated with illegal drugs. * http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht... (edit: spelling and added link to article about Portugal's policy experiment)
- dylangs1030 15y ago
  Legalizing something harmful because there are other harmful things that are ALSO legal isn't sensible. It just means more things should be illegal. And they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption. That a prison is unhealthy says more about the American prison system than the comparative health of narcotics. There are a lot of responses I can't cover individually, so here is a thought experiment to extrapolate the restriction and legality issue further: why regulate anything? Why restrict anything? We can viably allow murder and rape to exist as well if gun laws have no regulation - every one is responsible for themselves, and forget the rest.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    "Legalizing something harmful because there are other harmful things that are ALSO legal isn't sensible. It just means more things should be illegal." So. Would you choose to restart Prohibition if it were up to you?
    - dylangs1030 15y ago
      No, there are degrees to which something is harmful, and mechanics to how they're deadly. Alcohol usually kills in car accidents. Heroin does not require a car to kill, and there is no such thing as moderation with drugs like heroin and cocaine. People don't exactly stumble about after drinking fine wine usually. (Edit) To clarify, alcohol does not need vehicular accidents to kill, it does cause damage to the liver, but my basic point was that while there are substances that are legal which are harmful, such as nicotine and alcohol, these are far and away much less harmful than other illegal controlled substances which have more overdose potential.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        "Alcohol usually kills in car accidents. Heroin does not require a car to kill" You are entirely deluded.
      - epicureanideal 15y ago
        Alchohol doesn't require a car to kill either. How many cases are there of spousal murder while intoxicated? Also, heroin generally kills when people try to rob others for money to get heroin, not when people are on heroin, because it is a strong depressant and people tend to just lounge around like with pot. If heroin were legal and cheap that problem goes away.
        Fliko 15y ago
        Alcohol is a very strong depressant too, and most of the heroin deaths aren't from people robbing houses that are empty while they are in withdrawal due to lack of money to buy heroin. Heroin (and alcohol) also cause psychosis, which is probably the biggest cause for things such as spousal murder. Legalization is a weak argument when the only evidence is "It worked for Portugal!" or "If we take away the criminal organizations then everything will be well!". Instead of fighting the infinite number of criminals I'd rather we help the dudes who fucked up and now want to make their lives better.
- Fliko 15y ago
  Can't imagine ever comparing heroin to obesity or cigarettes
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
    Which of these kills the most people and costs the most money to deal with?
    - Fliko 15y ago
      Obviously the one that is more of a widespread issue. Obesity costs more money to deal with because there are infinitely more obese people in the world than there are who are addicted to heroin. Fast food is legalized which means criminal organizations aren't going to cash in with it, but it does mean more people are going to be eating it because it's easier to obtain. Certain narcotics are very clearly adverse because they are extremely addictive with very very small amount of use. You argue against "clearly adverse narcotics", does that mean you think it is responsible to make all narcotics legal? Should people be able to get heroin as easily as they get cigarettes, never mind the kids who would easily be able to go get some dude to buy them a hit of heroin or meth. One mistake run with heroin or meth can fuck your life up for good, no matter what kind of person you are. Proper education and good life styles are a much more effective defense against drugs then legalization.
anamax 15y ago
> However, [legalizing hard drugs is] socially irresponsible. You've said that - I'm asking how you're defining "socially irresponsible". > I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them. Not banning something is not the same as "govt making available". More to the point, those drugs are freely available despite all the laws. I'll ask again. What benefits do we actually get from the drug laws? If you mention availability, you get to show that the laws actually affect it because if they don't, that's not a benefit. Since they are freely available, that's a tough argument to make. Then you get to explain why the benefits that we actually get are worth the very significant costs that we pay. I note that beer distributors don't kill folks over territory.

robotresearcher 15y ago

"clearly adverse narcotics" How are they clearly adverse? Why was it not clear before the middle of the 20th century? Why is it not clear in other countries? Why was alcohol "clearly adverse" in the early 20th century in the US? What's the evidence that making drugs illegal has net benefits to society? It is very, very expensive and unhealthy to lock up so many young people for drug offenses. Illegal drugs do a lot of harm, but so do alcohol, cigarettes and obesity. If narcotics were legal, we would sadly continue to lose good people to them. But the evidence from Portugal* suggests this would be not more than we already do. And we would lose far fewer people to prison, drug-related violence and the accidents and diseases due to the conditions associated with illegal drugs. * http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht... (edit: spelling and added link to article about Portugal's policy experiment)

dylangs1030 15y ago
Legalizing something harmful because there are other harmful things that are ALSO legal isn't sensible. It just means more things should be illegal. And they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption. That a prison is unhealthy says more about the American prison system than the comparative health of narcotics. There are a lot of responses I can't cover individually, so here is a thought experiment to extrapolate the restriction and legality issue further: why regulate anything? Why restrict anything? We can viably allow murder and rape to exist as well if gun laws have no regulation - every one is responsible for themselves, and forget the rest.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "Legalizing something harmful because there are other harmful things that are ALSO legal isn't sensible. It just means more things should be illegal." So. Would you choose to restart Prohibition if it were up to you?
  - dylangs1030 15y ago
    No, there are degrees to which something is harmful, and mechanics to how they're deadly. Alcohol usually kills in car accidents. Heroin does not require a car to kill, and there is no such thing as moderation with drugs like heroin and cocaine. People don't exactly stumble about after drinking fine wine usually. (Edit) To clarify, alcohol does not need vehicular accidents to kill, it does cause damage to the liver, but my basic point was that while there are substances that are legal which are harmful, such as nicotine and alcohol, these are far and away much less harmful than other illegal controlled substances which have more overdose potential.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      "Alcohol usually kills in car accidents. Heroin does not require a car to kill" You are entirely deluded.
    - epicureanideal 15y ago
      Alchohol doesn't require a car to kill either. How many cases are there of spousal murder while intoxicated? Also, heroin generally kills when people try to rob others for money to get heroin, not when people are on heroin, because it is a strong depressant and people tend to just lounge around like with pot. If heroin were legal and cheap that problem goes away.
      - Fliko 15y ago
        Alcohol is a very strong depressant too, and most of the heroin deaths aren't from people robbing houses that are empty while they are in withdrawal due to lack of money to buy heroin. Heroin (and alcohol) also cause psychosis, which is probably the biggest cause for things such as spousal murder. Legalization is a weak argument when the only evidence is "It worked for Portugal!" or "If we take away the criminal organizations then everything will be well!". Instead of fighting the infinite number of criminals I'd rather we help the dudes who fucked up and now want to make their lives better.
Fliko 15y ago
Can't imagine ever comparing heroin to obesity or cigarettes
- robotresearcher 15y ago
  Which of these kills the most people and costs the most money to deal with?
  - Fliko 15y ago
    Obviously the one that is more of a widespread issue. Obesity costs more money to deal with because there are infinitely more obese people in the world than there are who are addicted to heroin. Fast food is legalized which means criminal organizations aren't going to cash in with it, but it does mean more people are going to be eating it because it's easier to obtain. Certain narcotics are very clearly adverse because they are extremely addictive with very very small amount of use. You argue against "clearly adverse narcotics", does that mean you think it is responsible to make all narcotics legal? Should people be able to get heroin as easily as they get cigarettes, never mind the kids who would easily be able to go get some dude to buy them a hit of heroin or meth. One mistake run with heroin or meth can fuck your life up for good, no matter what kind of person you are. Proper education and good life styles are a much more effective defense against drugs then legalization.

anamax 15y ago

> However, [legalizing hard drugs is] socially irresponsible. You've said that - I'm asking how you're defining "socially irresponsible". > I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them. Not banning something is not the same as "govt making available". More to the point, those drugs are freely available despite all the laws. I'll ask again. What benefits do we actually get from the drug laws? If you mention availability, you get to show that the laws actually affect it because if they don't, that's not a benefit. Since they are freely available, that's a tough argument to make. Then you get to explain why the benefits that we actually get are worth the very significant costs that we pay. I note that beer distributors don't kill folks over territory.