7 ms·

I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever substance/plant/medicine I choose to partake in, anyways. If I intentionally fused it with a far more dange

I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever substance/plant/medicine I choose to partake in, anyways. If I intentionally fused it with a far more dangerous chemical, and I don't make that obvious to the purchaser, then yeah, that should be a felony. Just like how false advertising is something you can take to court. We treat the population too much like children. Let people make their own decisions. If it kills them, it kills them. They made their choice. If they want help, they'll seek it on their own. If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure people due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses. If you drive under the influence of chemicals that reduce your motor skills and reaction time, and alter your perception of reality, that is an obvious offense. Other than those cases which we can almost all agree should be intervened, why are we telling people what they're allowed to do with their bodies?

renewiltord 4y ago
America has a smart play here, actually. Your "can I use drugs?" test is "If you were a drug user, would I know?". That's why I worked at startups with rampant use of cocaine. I've used psychedelics for years. Loads of people I know go to Burning Man and do hella drugs. Everyone in the group is doing fantastically. But someone I know told me a director at his bank was fired for inviting interns over after a bar crawl to do drugs. Or something like that. That was the test: do you know who to let know what you do?
refurb 4y ago
Why? All you have to do is read through an HN thread on some financial product with high risk, say interest-only mortgages, to learn that if you give people freedom to do what they want they’ll turn around and blame someone else when things go wrong. I agree that adults should be able to take whatever substance they want, but I also know that if we did that people who had negative experiences would then blame the media, sellers, their parents, the medical establishment, the internet, the courts, the FDA and anyone else for the consequences, except themselves. This is why we can’t have nice things.
jobs_throwaway 4y ago
puritanism and moral authoritarianism. People love imposing their morals on others, and most are taught from a young age that drugs other than alcohol and caffeine are bad
- distant_hat 4y ago
  Don't underestimate the amount of lobbying the alcohol industry does to make it seem like always having a drink is the best and only way to wind down and have fun.
- seanw444 4y ago
  I personally don't take anything (other than maybe some over-the-counter painkillers when I've got a minor injury, or what doctors prescribe to me - just to quell the gotchas). I don't drink or smoke cigs, because of the obvious health defects that are associated with them. Drinking less so, but I am personally concerned about acquiring an addiction. But if there was one thing I would consider trying, it's psychedelics. It can help you think outside the box, apparently has some link to treating depression, and they're not particularly addictive (other than an adrenaline junkie type of addiction, which can develop with anything). Point being, I don't do anything of the sort. But it baffles me that people are incapable of allowing others to do things that they personally don't want to partake in.
was_a_dev 4y ago
Would that make overdosing a criminal offense? In the UK, being treated for an overdose is an expense of the tax payer. Obviously people still overdose, and that expense already exists. But the legality of dangerous substances is to minimize the harm, and therefore the cost associated with that harm. A free-for-all approach would either have to accept a greater expense (not just economically) or introduce other measures to minimize the harm.
- admissionsguy 4y ago
  We treat obese people (as is probably ethical) so we can as well treat all the other self-imposed conditions without counting the pennies.
  - was_a_dev 4y ago
    I agree. That is why the cost isn't just economical. We treat obese people while enacting laws to improve public health. Such as food quality laws.
- remote-dev 4y ago
  What would the punishment for the offense be? If it is prison time, that also costs the tax payer.
  - was_a_dev 4y ago
    I've no idea. It's a complex arguement to make, and my few points don't do it justice. I'm sure there is an optimal balance with legality that minmizes harm and cost. I think we are on the conservative side of that balance. But going for a free-for-all approach is the other extreme side.
- bigfudge 4y ago
  Whether free for all drug use would be more expensive is an empirical question and- if it displaces any alcohol use — the evidence would be strongly that it would cut costs, especially if basic standards for purity were enforced.
cjwilliams 4y ago
I agree with the sentiment and think that legalizing drugs like psilocybin is a positive step. But I have learned from seeing the consequences of drugs like fentanyl and meth that some substances are too dangerous and addictive to be available to the public. And in practice, cities don't have enough resources to deal with the consequences associated with them that you've listed. It is not practical to allow the use of drugs that consistently drive people to lives of crime and dependence. Often lives are damaged irreparably and the societal costs are incalculable, but emergency bills and social services can alone be staggering high.
- monocasa 4y ago
  But drugs like fentanyl and meth are still available to the general public despite being illegal. So the question instead is do the practical effects of illegality help society, and that's not at all clear.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    And many people are too afraid to get help because of the potential consequences.
    - Wohlf 4y ago
      I no longer believe this after Oregon decriminalized drugs, there are no consequences and people still do not seek out help.
      - monocasa 4y ago
        It takes time to see results. For instance it took a few years after Portugal decriminalized all drugs before their program really hit it's stride. There's a lot of societal infrastructure that needs to be dismantled and reconstructed for the new system and that takes time.
  - cjwilliams 4y ago
    I think if you look at areas that try to restrict the supply of these dangerous drug options you will find that that they are less available and expensive. When you look at areas like Portland/West Coast of US, you see that with increasing availability there are lots of associated problems. Perhaps there needs to be institutionally provided drug alternatives for those who have already become addicted, but id argue its very clear that lowering barriers to use has clear negative impacts.
crystalmeph 4y ago
I'm actually in agreement with you here, but I can see the other side. You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large. If you make it illegal, the proportion who fall to its ill effects may be reduced, even if the cost to those who still use it is greatly magnified. It's a classic case of what's best for society versus what's best for the individual. I, personally, would argue that enforcing overly harsh rules results in a net cost for society, due to the costs of enforcement, loss of productivity to society by those you put in jail, etc. But the motive behind these laws is not always just "muh morality," and it's not a sure bet that allowing people unfettered freedom in their personal life is a good thing for society.
- seanw444 4y ago
  As with most issues, this one can be reduced to collectivist vs. individualist. I'm primarily an individualist. Hence my opinion.
  - anon291 4y ago
    An individualist with no definition of an individual is quite useless. In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors. Even in the most liberal countries, there are ways to declare particular individuals as wards of another (disability, elderly, children, etc). Without rationality, the basis of classical liberal philosophy disintegrates. So if we want to be consistent as a liberal individualist, we need to place rationality on quite a high pedestal, which means at least making concessions that those taking drugs ought to be temporarily at least deprived of particular civil rights.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors It does not; classical liberalism is an ideology that depends on a particular structure of moral precepts of rights, independently of how people might make use of them. The utilitarian, rather than deontological, argument for laissez-faire capitalism depends on the rational (in a very particular technical sense) actors, but this is (while people who identify as “classical liberals” overlap considerably with rhetorical, at least, advocates of laissez-faire capitalism) not the same thing.
throwawayfear 4y ago
> If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure people due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses. Too many good innocent people will be unable to fix the issue once it gets started. This view may appear well intentioned but the end result is suffering for people who are lied to by people offering prescriptions or who fall for the people who talk up legal things that they themselves like but that are actually bad for health. (Like alcohol)
sys32768 4y ago
If you are in society and altering your mind and impairing your judgement, you're no longer the default "you" but a chemically compromised and unpredictable actor, who may be out of control. In her third week of college, my daughter found the naked body of a student who leapt through the eighth story dorm window to his death while tripping on magic mushrooms. She is traumatized for life because somebody chose to make a choice with their body by ingesting unpredictable drugs. I am fairly confident, given the state of pro-psychedelics evangelism today, that the young man expected a fun trip. Instead, he died and could have killed another student with his fall.
- armatav 4y ago
  They’re not joke substances. But for every mushroom related death, there are literally tens of thousands of alcohol related deaths.
  - sys32768 4y ago
    I don't disagree. Not long after that incident, a drunk frat student plunged to his death at the same college. Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled Sin City, a sort of padded playground where people can choose to risk hangovers, overdose or death by their substance of choice, without being amid general society. Then after they sober up, they get to return to society.
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      > Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled Sin City Or perhaps the inverse, where folks like yourself can live fully protected, and insulated from individual liberty.
    - armatav 4y ago
      Or just an indoctrination process focused on personal responsibility to one’s consciousness and loved ones; instead of a deranged “education” composed of a fixation on prohibition and self-repression.
    - 4y ago
nh23423fefe 4y ago
> why are we telling people what they're allowed to do with their bodies I don't think this is a useful defense of permissiveness, because it proves too much. We don't let people mutilate themselves either, because we consider it an indication of wrong thinking. It just isn't the case that all choices are respected, because not all behavior is accepted either. I don't think the state treats subjects like children. It treats them like components, components exist within tolerances or they are discarded/altered. The state isn't my parent, it is my master.
anon291 4y ago
> if it kills them, it kills them This attitude is fine, and I understand it, if it's accompanied by actually letting people fail. Unfortunately, when they do fail, it's the impetus to start yet another social welfare program for people who made terrible decisions, instead of just regulating the terrible decision out of existence to begin with.
hericium 4y ago
> I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever substance/plant/medicine I choose to partake in, anyways. You could start thinking outside the frames your government and/or religious leaders wants you to to keep between.

renewiltord 4y ago

America has a smart play here, actually. Your "can I use drugs?" test is "If you were a drug user, would I know?". That's why I worked at startups with rampant use of cocaine. I've used psychedelics for years. Loads of people I know go to Burning Man and do hella drugs. Everyone in the group is doing fantastically. But someone I know told me a director at his bank was fired for inviting interns over after a bar crawl to do drugs. Or something like that. That was the test: do you know who to let know what you do?

refurb 4y ago

Why? All you have to do is read through an HN thread on some financial product with high risk, say interest-only mortgages, to learn that if you give people freedom to do what they want they’ll turn around and blame someone else when things go wrong. I agree that adults should be able to take whatever substance they want, but I also know that if we did that people who had negative experiences would then blame the media, sellers, their parents, the medical establishment, the internet, the courts, the FDA and anyone else for the consequences, except themselves. This is why we can’t have nice things.

jobs_throwaway 4y ago

puritanism and moral authoritarianism. People love imposing their morals on others, and most are taught from a young age that drugs other than alcohol and caffeine are bad

distant_hat 4y ago
Don't underestimate the amount of lobbying the alcohol industry does to make it seem like always having a drink is the best and only way to wind down and have fun.
seanw444 4y ago
I personally don't take anything (other than maybe some over-the-counter painkillers when I've got a minor injury, or what doctors prescribe to me - just to quell the gotchas). I don't drink or smoke cigs, because of the obvious health defects that are associated with them. Drinking less so, but I am personally concerned about acquiring an addiction. But if there was one thing I would consider trying, it's psychedelics. It can help you think outside the box, apparently has some link to treating depression, and they're not particularly addictive (other than an adrenaline junkie type of addiction, which can develop with anything). Point being, I don't do anything of the sort. But it baffles me that people are incapable of allowing others to do things that they personally don't want to partake in.

was_a_dev 4y ago

Would that make overdosing a criminal offense? In the UK, being treated for an overdose is an expense of the tax payer. Obviously people still overdose, and that expense already exists. But the legality of dangerous substances is to minimize the harm, and therefore the cost associated with that harm. A free-for-all approach would either have to accept a greater expense (not just economically) or introduce other measures to minimize the harm.

admissionsguy 4y ago
We treat obese people (as is probably ethical) so we can as well treat all the other self-imposed conditions without counting the pennies.
- was_a_dev 4y ago
  I agree. That is why the cost isn't just economical. We treat obese people while enacting laws to improve public health. Such as food quality laws.
remote-dev 4y ago
What would the punishment for the offense be? If it is prison time, that also costs the tax payer.
- was_a_dev 4y ago
  I've no idea. It's a complex arguement to make, and my few points don't do it justice. I'm sure there is an optimal balance with legality that minmizes harm and cost. I think we are on the conservative side of that balance. But going for a free-for-all approach is the other extreme side.
bigfudge 4y ago
Whether free for all drug use would be more expensive is an empirical question and- if it displaces any alcohol use — the evidence would be strongly that it would cut costs, especially if basic standards for purity were enforced.

cjwilliams 4y ago

I agree with the sentiment and think that legalizing drugs like psilocybin is a positive step. But I have learned from seeing the consequences of drugs like fentanyl and meth that some substances are too dangerous and addictive to be available to the public. And in practice, cities don't have enough resources to deal with the consequences associated with them that you've listed. It is not practical to allow the use of drugs that consistently drive people to lives of crime and dependence. Often lives are damaged irreparably and the societal costs are incalculable, but emergency bills and social services can alone be staggering high.

monocasa 4y ago
But drugs like fentanyl and meth are still available to the general public despite being illegal. So the question instead is do the practical effects of illegality help society, and that's not at all clear.
- seanw444 4y ago
  And many people are too afraid to get help because of the potential consequences.
  - Wohlf 4y ago
    I no longer believe this after Oregon decriminalized drugs, there are no consequences and people still do not seek out help.
    - monocasa 4y ago
      It takes time to see results. For instance it took a few years after Portugal decriminalized all drugs before their program really hit it's stride. There's a lot of societal infrastructure that needs to be dismantled and reconstructed for the new system and that takes time.
- cjwilliams 4y ago
  I think if you look at areas that try to restrict the supply of these dangerous drug options you will find that that they are less available and expensive. When you look at areas like Portland/West Coast of US, you see that with increasing availability there are lots of associated problems. Perhaps there needs to be institutionally provided drug alternatives for those who have already become addicted, but id argue its very clear that lowering barriers to use has clear negative impacts.

crystalmeph 4y ago

I'm actually in agreement with you here, but I can see the other side. You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large. If you make it illegal, the proportion who fall to its ill effects may be reduced, even if the cost to those who still use it is greatly magnified. It's a classic case of what's best for society versus what's best for the individual. I, personally, would argue that enforcing overly harsh rules results in a net cost for society, due to the costs of enforcement, loss of productivity to society by those you put in jail, etc. But the motive behind these laws is not always just "muh morality," and it's not a sure bet that allowing people unfettered freedom in their personal life is a good thing for society.

seanw444 4y ago
As with most issues, this one can be reduced to collectivist vs. individualist. I'm primarily an individualist. Hence my opinion.
- anon291 4y ago
  An individualist with no definition of an individual is quite useless. In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors. Even in the most liberal countries, there are ways to declare particular individuals as wards of another (disability, elderly, children, etc). Without rationality, the basis of classical liberal philosophy disintegrates. So if we want to be consistent as a liberal individualist, we need to place rationality on quite a high pedestal, which means at least making concessions that those taking drugs ought to be temporarily at least deprived of particular civil rights.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors It does not; classical liberalism is an ideology that depends on a particular structure of moral precepts of rights, independently of how people might make use of them. The utilitarian, rather than deontological, argument for laissez-faire capitalism depends on the rational (in a very particular technical sense) actors, but this is (while people who identify as “classical liberals” overlap considerably with rhetorical, at least, advocates of laissez-faire capitalism) not the same thing.

throwawayfear 4y ago

> If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure people due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses. Too many good innocent people will be unable to fix the issue once it gets started. This view may appear well intentioned but the end result is suffering for people who are lied to by people offering prescriptions or who fall for the people who talk up legal things that they themselves like but that are actually bad for health. (Like alcohol)

sys32768 4y ago

If you are in society and altering your mind and impairing your judgement, you're no longer the default "you" but a chemically compromised and unpredictable actor, who may be out of control. In her third week of college, my daughter found the naked body of a student who leapt through the eighth story dorm window to his death while tripping on magic mushrooms. She is traumatized for life because somebody chose to make a choice with their body by ingesting unpredictable drugs. I am fairly confident, given the state of pro-psychedelics evangelism today, that the young man expected a fun trip. Instead, he died and could have killed another student with his fall.

armatav 4y ago
They’re not joke substances. But for every mushroom related death, there are literally tens of thousands of alcohol related deaths.
- sys32768 4y ago
  I don't disagree. Not long after that incident, a drunk frat student plunged to his death at the same college. Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled Sin City, a sort of padded playground where people can choose to risk hangovers, overdose or death by their substance of choice, without being amid general society. Then after they sober up, they get to return to society.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    > Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled Sin City Or perhaps the inverse, where folks like yourself can live fully protected, and insulated from individual liberty.
  - armatav 4y ago
    Or just an indoctrination process focused on personal responsibility to one’s consciousness and loved ones; instead of a deranged “education” composed of a fixation on prohibition and self-repression.
  - 4y ago

nh23423fefe 4y ago

> why are we telling people what they're allowed to do with their bodies I don't think this is a useful defense of permissiveness, because it proves too much. We don't let people mutilate themselves either, because we consider it an indication of wrong thinking. It just isn't the case that all choices are respected, because not all behavior is accepted either. I don't think the state treats subjects like children. It treats them like components, components exist within tolerances or they are discarded/altered. The state isn't my parent, it is my master.

anon291 4y ago

> if it kills them, it kills them This attitude is fine, and I understand it, if it's accompanied by actually letting people fail. Unfortunately, when they do fail, it's the impetus to start yet another social welfare program for people who made terrible decisions, instead of just regulating the terrible decision out of existence to begin with.

hericium 4y ago

> I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever substance/plant/medicine I choose to partake in, anyways. You could start thinking outside the frames your government and/or religious leaders wants you to to keep between.