4 ms·

As the saying goes, 'the human mind is a stationary target'. At some point the idea, that average people can build enough self-control to resist all those tempt

by mckirk 4y ago

As the saying goes, 'the human mind is a stationary target'. At some point the idea, that average people can build enough self-control to resist all those temptations that are constantly being optimized into being the most tempting they can be, just doesn't work anymore. Nobody would argue for giving kids free access to heroin and let them 'train their self control'.

jonfw 4y ago
> Nobody would argue for giving kids free access to heroin and let them 'train their self control'. When most people argue against prohibition, they're not saying that making the bad thing available is great. They're saying that we can't effectively reduce the availability of things that people want, so when we attempt to do so, we end up with all of the negative externalities associated with prohibition without any of the actual prohibiting
- sidfthec 4y ago
  At the same time: "Residents of states where cannabis has been legalized use marijuana 24% more frequently than those living in states where it remains illegal" -- Colorado University This may be fine enough for weed, but what if harder drugs start being used 24% more? Even if they're in more pure form than from illegal sources, that doesn't sound like a net positive.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    Oxycontin is perfectly legal and regulated such that only qualified professionals were able to prescribe and dispense it. And look how that turned out. There's a whole lot of evidence that prohibition vs legalization each have negative effects and it is up to society to decide which is more appropriate in certain situations. I doubt that food regulations are going to result in black market Doritos barons waging deadly turf wars in the streets. But I suspect it will result in food manufactures building a much worse product in response.
  - jonfw 4y ago
    Do you have a link to the study? When I did a quick search I saw a pretty wide variety of numbers, not sure which one you are referring to. Another way of writing that headline is potentially "cannabis users 24% more likely to admit to using cannabis when in a state where it's legal", or even "marijuana legalization brings cannabis users from out of state". Even if the study you're referring to does effectively control for those two factors- I would hesitate to apply those results to a harder drug like heroine. Marijuana education and legalization are happening at the same time. The information on Marijuana is pretty promising and education may incentivize it's use for some purposes. I do not believe the same about heroine- education would probably disincentivize it's use.
ProAm 4y ago
If you need the government to tell you what to eat, I think were at a point where we let evolution fix this one for us... as for that is signs of a failed society.
- taskforcegemini 4y ago
  without "the government" we wouldn't know what is actually in the food and couldn't make an informed decision
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    Do: Have the government require transparency and safety of producers of goods (especially food). Do not: Dictate or attempt to control what food consumers choose. Exceptions: Tobacco, carcinogens, hallucinogens, narcotic substances, poisons... See "safety"
    - munk-a 4y ago
      Why is sugar not on your list of exceptions when excessive quantities of it are much more impactful on your health than everything on that list outside of out-right-poisons? Obesity is killing a lot of folks before they grow old enough to develop Cancers.
    - yetihehe 4y ago
      I could classify food as narcotic substance. It's addictive for me, I've felt withdrawal symptoms very clearly and I really felt like a junkie on hunger when I dropped too much weight too fast. There is BIG a difference between "stomach empty" hunger and "PANIC_MODE: your cells require energy NOW" hunger.
    - towzzer 4y ago
      Someone has already pointed out sugar and how it's not on your exceptions list. Let's do this another way though. What are the criteria for being added to your exceptions?
  - ProAm 4y ago

by mckirk 4y ago

jonfw 4y ago

> Nobody would argue for giving kids free access to heroin and let them 'train their self control'. When most people argue against prohibition, they're not saying that making the bad thing available is great. They're saying that we can't effectively reduce the availability of things that people want, so when we attempt to do so, we end up with all of the negative externalities associated with prohibition without any of the actual prohibiting

sidfthec 4y ago
At the same time: "Residents of states where cannabis has been legalized use marijuana 24% more frequently than those living in states where it remains illegal" -- Colorado University This may be fine enough for weed, but what if harder drugs start being used 24% more? Even if they're in more pure form than from illegal sources, that doesn't sound like a net positive.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  Oxycontin is perfectly legal and regulated such that only qualified professionals were able to prescribe and dispense it. And look how that turned out. There's a whole lot of evidence that prohibition vs legalization each have negative effects and it is up to society to decide which is more appropriate in certain situations. I doubt that food regulations are going to result in black market Doritos barons waging deadly turf wars in the streets. But I suspect it will result in food manufactures building a much worse product in response.
- jonfw 4y ago
  Do you have a link to the study? When I did a quick search I saw a pretty wide variety of numbers, not sure which one you are referring to. Another way of writing that headline is potentially "cannabis users 24% more likely to admit to using cannabis when in a state where it's legal", or even "marijuana legalization brings cannabis users from out of state". Even if the study you're referring to does effectively control for those two factors- I would hesitate to apply those results to a harder drug like heroine. Marijuana education and legalization are happening at the same time. The information on Marijuana is pretty promising and education may incentivize it's use for some purposes. I do not believe the same about heroine- education would probably disincentivize it's use.

ProAm 4y ago

If you need the government to tell you what to eat, I think were at a point where we let evolution fix this one for us... as for that is signs of a failed society.

taskforcegemini 4y ago
without "the government" we wouldn't know what is actually in the food and couldn't make an informed decision
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  Do: Have the government require transparency and safety of producers of goods (especially food). Do not: Dictate or attempt to control what food consumers choose. Exceptions: Tobacco, carcinogens, hallucinogens, narcotic substances, poisons... See "safety"
  - munk-a 4y ago
    Why is sugar not on your list of exceptions when excessive quantities of it are much more impactful on your health than everything on that list outside of out-right-poisons? Obesity is killing a lot of folks before they grow old enough to develop Cancers.
  - yetihehe 4y ago
    I could classify food as narcotic substance. It's addictive for me, I've felt withdrawal symptoms very clearly and I really felt like a junkie on hunger when I dropped too much weight too fast. There is BIG a difference between "stomach empty" hunger and "PANIC_MODE: your cells require energy NOW" hunger.
  - towzzer 4y ago
    Someone has already pointed out sugar and how it's not on your exceptions list. Let's do this another way though. What are the criteria for being added to your exceptions?
- ProAm 4y ago