4 ms·

An amazing book on this topic, a must-read, is Legalize This! by Douglas Husak He argues that all drugs should be decriminalized (note that this is different f

by yboris 4y ago

An amazing book on this topic, a must-read, is Legalize This! by Douglas Husak He argues that all drugs should be decriminalized (note that this is different from legalized; he is arguing no one should be punished for consumption of any drug). The argument is elegant, simple, and profound. Anyone who is going to jail requires an explanation for why that is happening. It is easy to provide one for violent crimes (for example). But you can't come up with anything reasonable for drug offenses. In the book he goes through four categories of possible responses and shows that they are all lacking (or prohibit too much if imposed in general). For example: we don't put people to jail for risky behavior like skiing or skydiving; we don't put people to jail for things that hurt their health, like alcohol, or pizza. https://www.versobooks.com/books/724-legalize-this https://www.versobooks.com/books/724-legalize-this

tablespoon 4y ago
> The argument is elegant, simple, and profound. FWIW, an argument can be "elegant, simple, ... profound," and wrong. Some of the most pernicious ideas are like that.
- yboris 4y ago
  You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. After all, given that putting someone in jail is just about the worst thing our government can do to a person, any person being put in jail deserves a good reason. And there is just none provided when someone is put in jail. This is why it's so hard to argue against the status quo - there is no argument to argue against.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. Compelling doesn't mean correct. The impression I got of it was it's one that takes a small(ish) number of philosophical propositions and situational variables, comes up with some solution that's maximally consistent with those propositions, then insists that be applied rigorously to a real word (that's rather more complicated). I'm generally skeptical of that kind of stuff. That maximal consistency is extremely seductive, but the simplifications taken to get there are often oversimplifications, and seductiveness makes it tempting to avert your eyes from the problems and be satisfied.
    - yboris 4y ago
      It's worth reading the book then ;) The author is a philosopher who is very careful about language and his arguments. He has written 2 other books on this topic (Drugs & Rights, and Ovecriminalization -- I read both and can recommend). One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs. Honestly, that sounds like nonsense. Not having some compact math-like definition for the category doesn't mean there's no definition for it.
        yboris 4y ago
        Clearly the government doesn't have any -- it's just a matter of what's on a list. Sure we can say that the more a substance is addictive, the more we want to put it into the category of "drug"; the more it impairs someone, the more it fits in our vague sense of what "drug" means. The author isn't saying "look, no necessary or sufficient condition exists, therefore checkmate". Also, I hope you agree that the word "definition" means something akin to "a statement of the exact meaning of a word" - and the more vague a thing's category, the less we have a definition of it.
loki49152 4y ago
"we don't put people to jail for things that hurt their health, like alcohol, or pizza." And yet people keep trying to get the government more and more deeply involved in the medical industry, which would lead to exactly this outcome.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  So I'm in the US where the government regulates the entire medical industry (drug approval, provider licensing, etc). How do you get them more involved at that point? Medicare even sets the prices for care.
hackeraccount 4y ago
I always think of the story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" If you think abusing drugs are a problem how much suffering do you want to inflict to fix it? A little bit? Just don't actively help people use drugs but instead stand by and do nothing while they destroy themselves? A little bit more? Shout at them all day long? More? Throw a few in jail until and in so doing scare the rest into not hurting themselves? Even more? Toss them all in jail - well, at least they aren't kill themselves?

by yboris 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

> The argument is elegant, simple, and profound. FWIW, an argument can be "elegant, simple, ... profound," and wrong. Some of the most pernicious ideas are like that.

yboris 4y ago
You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. After all, given that putting someone in jail is just about the worst thing our government can do to a person, any person being put in jail deserves a good reason. And there is just none provided when someone is put in jail. This is why it's so hard to argue against the status quo - there is no argument to argue against.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. Compelling doesn't mean correct. The impression I got of it was it's one that takes a small(ish) number of philosophical propositions and situational variables, comes up with some solution that's maximally consistent with those propositions, then insists that be applied rigorously to a real word (that's rather more complicated). I'm generally skeptical of that kind of stuff. That maximal consistency is extremely seductive, but the simplifications taken to get there are often oversimplifications, and seductiveness makes it tempting to avert your eyes from the problems and be satisfied.
  - yboris 4y ago
    It's worth reading the book then ;) The author is a philosopher who is very careful about language and his arguments. He has written 2 other books on this topic (Drugs & Rights, and Ovecriminalization -- I read both and can recommend). One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs. Honestly, that sounds like nonsense. Not having some compact math-like definition for the category doesn't mean there's no definition for it.
      - yboris 4y ago
        Clearly the government doesn't have any -- it's just a matter of what's on a list. Sure we can say that the more a substance is addictive, the more we want to put it into the category of "drug"; the more it impairs someone, the more it fits in our vague sense of what "drug" means. The author isn't saying "look, no necessary or sufficient condition exists, therefore checkmate". Also, I hope you agree that the word "definition" means something akin to "a statement of the exact meaning of a word" - and the more vague a thing's category, the less we have a definition of it.

loki49152 4y ago

"we don't put people to jail for things that hurt their health, like alcohol, or pizza." And yet people keep trying to get the government more and more deeply involved in the medical industry, which would lead to exactly this outcome.

maxerickson 4y ago
So I'm in the US where the government regulates the entire medical industry (drug approval, provider licensing, etc). How do you get them more involved at that point? Medicare even sets the prices for care.

hackeraccount 4y ago

I always think of the story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" If you think abusing drugs are a problem how much suffering do you want to inflict to fix it? A little bit? Just don't actively help people use drugs but instead stand by and do nothing while they destroy themselves? A little bit more? Shout at them all day long? More? Throw a few in jail until and in so doing scare the rest into not hurting themselves? Even more? Toss them all in jail - well, at least they aren't kill themselves?