4 ms·

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 a

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.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        "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." You realize that is exactly what Portugal is doing, right?
        Fliko 15y ago
        Apparently not, but I also see lifetime use of heroin also nearly doubled due to legalization, and there is still question on what effects were caused by the legalization and what effects weren't.
  - VMG 15y ago
    > it does cause damage to the liver And to most other parts of the body
  - xyzzyz 15y ago
    In eastern Europe there are plenty of cases of alcohol overdose resulting in death. On the other hand, there are no credible reports of marijuana or LSD being the direct cause of death. Sure, alcohol is far less harmful than some of the illegal controlled substances. Still, there are other illegal substances which are less harmful than alcohol. It's not like ethanol is the safest drug out there.
  - dagw 15y ago
    Alcohol usually kills in car accidents According to CDC data from 2001-2005, an avg of 20 thousand people died from directly alcohol related diseases (with an additional 16 thousand of conditions linked to excessive drinking), compared to 14 thousand who died in motor-vehicle accidents.
robotresearcher 15y ago
"they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption" Like rocks, thumbtacks, shampoo, too much aspirin, bacon-double-cheeseburgers and daytime TV. We do not ban everything that's unhealthy. The question is whether, on balance, the benefits of prohibition are greater than the costs. I think we agree on that, though we might disagree when we estimate the balance when it comes to narcotics. Unfortunately, statistics for both sides are limited. This scarcity of data makes the Portugese experience really valuable. We can know the cost of imprisoning all these people though. The US has the highest imprisonment rate in the world: 738 per 100,000. The UK, which has similar societal attitudes to drugs, though very different judicial policies, has 148 per 100,000, which is still above the median globally. US taxpayers are spending too much money on food, lodging and security for drug offenders. Imprisonment data: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/world-prison-pop-seventh.pdf http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/worl... edit: in case you think the cultural differences with the UK make the comparison poor, Canada has 107 prisoners per 100,000 population. That's one seventh the rate of their neighbor.
- dylangs1030 15y ago
  So, correct me if I'm wrong, is your argument that it's better to choose the lesser of two evils? In other words, we should legalize drugs because they are obtainable anyway and we need to reduce the number of people in prison?
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
    I wouldn't put it like that, but roughly yes. I think the current policies are probably doing more harm than good. We should try decriminalizing some drugs, and spend some of the money we save on enforcement on education and health services. This is a harm reduction strategy, which is how we handle alcohol now.
  - Goronmon 15y ago
    So, correct me if I'm wrong, is your argument that it's better to choose the lesser of two evils? Is your argument that it's better to choose the greater of two evils?

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.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      "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." You realize that is exactly what Portugal is doing, right?
      - Fliko 15y ago
        Apparently not, but I also see lifetime use of heroin also nearly doubled due to legalization, and there is still question on what effects were caused by the legalization and what effects weren't.
- VMG 15y ago
  > it does cause damage to the liver And to most other parts of the body
- xyzzyz 15y ago
  In eastern Europe there are plenty of cases of alcohol overdose resulting in death. On the other hand, there are no credible reports of marijuana or LSD being the direct cause of death. Sure, alcohol is far less harmful than some of the illegal controlled substances. Still, there are other illegal substances which are less harmful than alcohol. It's not like ethanol is the safest drug out there.
- dagw 15y ago
  Alcohol usually kills in car accidents According to CDC data from 2001-2005, an avg of 20 thousand people died from directly alcohol related diseases (with an additional 16 thousand of conditions linked to excessive drinking), compared to 14 thousand who died in motor-vehicle accidents.

robotresearcher 15y ago

"they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption" Like rocks, thumbtacks, shampoo, too much aspirin, bacon-double-cheeseburgers and daytime TV. We do not ban everything that's unhealthy. The question is whether, on balance, the benefits of prohibition are greater than the costs. I think we agree on that, though we might disagree when we estimate the balance when it comes to narcotics. Unfortunately, statistics for both sides are limited. This scarcity of data makes the Portugese experience really valuable. We can know the cost of imprisoning all these people though. The US has the highest imprisonment rate in the world: 738 per 100,000. The UK, which has similar societal attitudes to drugs, though very different judicial policies, has 148 per 100,000, which is still above the median globally. US taxpayers are spending too much money on food, lodging and security for drug offenders. Imprisonment data: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/world-prison-pop-seventh.pdf http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/worl... edit: in case you think the cultural differences with the UK make the comparison poor, Canada has 107 prisoners per 100,000 population. That's one seventh the rate of their neighbor.

dylangs1030 15y ago
So, correct me if I'm wrong, is your argument that it's better to choose the lesser of two evils? In other words, we should legalize drugs because they are obtainable anyway and we need to reduce the number of people in prison?
- robotresearcher 15y ago
  I wouldn't put it like that, but roughly yes. I think the current policies are probably doing more harm than good. We should try decriminalizing some drugs, and spend some of the money we save on enforcement on education and health services. This is a harm reduction strategy, which is how we handle alcohol now.
- Goronmon 15y ago
  So, correct me if I'm wrong, is your argument that it's better to choose the lesser of two evils? Is your argument that it's better to choose the greater of two evils?