4 ms·

No we shouldn't. There is a big difference between a parent safely bringing up a child and a state interfering with what an adult person does to themselves. Oth

No we shouldn't. There is a big difference between a parent safely bringing up a child and a state interfering with what an adult person does to themselves. Otherwise you open a can of greater good worms. If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Yes there are individual cases, but most of these would be destroying their lives in some other available way if opiods weren't available, like heavy use of alcohol.

josephcsible 4y ago
> opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts There is absolutely an epidemic of opioid addicts.
- frant-hartm 4y ago
  Let's agree to disagree.
xp84 4y ago
This is an area where we must acknowledge that one's "values" frame of reference is inextricably linked to how you decide this question. Yes, we definitely are sacrificing some of everyone's bodily autonomy because we think it's less bad than the consequences of putting no limits on it. Caffeine, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Cannabis, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, biological weapons and on some parallel track: BB gun, .22, Glock, AR-15, automatic rifle, RPG, cannon, tank, land mines, nuclear warhead If there's even one thing on the above list that you'd not want to be automatically OK for every person in the world to own and operate (at least on a "until you hurt someone" basis), then you're putting an arbitrary limit which values "preventing likely harms to others" over absolute autonomy. Even if you'd allow the warhead I don't think either of us can be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' -- just that it's most productive if we acknowledge which "paramount value" (perfect freedom vs. reduction in predictable harms to innocent others) we are prioritizing, and acknowledge that we have to make a significant sacrifice in the other one in order to do that.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol Not to mention, do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol If consumed in the same quantity, it might be. > do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me Botox is a neurotoxin originally derived from a bacterium. And various pesticides are regulated. Nicotine actually is a naturally occurring pesticide, though these days BigAg companies produce far more potent "Neonicotinoids" for killing insects.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      Please explain the mechanism by which cannabis causes DNA damage when consumed in the same quantity as alcohol. When you match recreational dose, it doesn't. There is a slight possibility of free radicals in smoke causing DNA damage but that is incredibly minor compared to alcohol and can be avoided with different methods of consumption. You can't avoid the DNA damage of alcohol at any dose or method of consumption
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        The word I was responding to was "harmful", with no further specification. I stand by what I wrote, and don't feel the need to try to explain a point I wasn't making.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        So then what is the mechanism of harm, if you can't state what the mechanism is then what is the reason to believe the statement? Anyone can just claim something is "harmful" but if they can't really state how then why is there any reason to believe the statement
knodi123 4y ago
> If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Most people don't know a dealer, and don't have the confidence to try to find one without worrying about the risk of contacting a narc or a tattletale or in some other ways destroying their lives because of the legal system. Hurdles matter. It's like common sense gun control- red flag laws, waiting periods, assault weapon bans, etc. None of those things make it impossible to have a mass shooting - but they make it a little harder, and that will stop a certain percentage of people. Dangerous drugs like opioids should be available, cheaply, by prescription only, and "addiction" should be a sufficient reason for the prescription. This makes the safe and secure drug source the correct choice for vulnerable addicts, still lets us drive the black market and drug cartels out of business, it prevents crazy impulse purchases, and the requirement to renew your prescription periodically gives you a chance for a responsible adult to non-judgmentally offer you resources for achieving sobriety. It's a win-win-win, guaranteed to lower death tolls and crime rates, but unlikely to increase the number of addicts.

josephcsible 4y ago

> opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts There is absolutely an epidemic of opioid addicts.

frant-hartm 4y ago
Let's agree to disagree.

xp84 4y ago

This is an area where we must acknowledge that one's "values" frame of reference is inextricably linked to how you decide this question. Yes, we definitely are sacrificing some of everyone's bodily autonomy because we think it's less bad than the consequences of putting no limits on it. Caffeine, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Cannabis, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, biological weapons and on some parallel track: BB gun, .22, Glock, AR-15, automatic rifle, RPG, cannon, tank, land mines, nuclear warhead If there's even one thing on the above list that you'd not want to be automatically OK for every person in the world to own and operate (at least on a "until you hurt someone" basis), then you're putting an arbitrary limit which values "preventing likely harms to others" over absolute autonomy. Even if you'd allow the warhead I don't think either of us can be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' -- just that it's most productive if we acknowledge which "paramount value" (perfect freedom vs. reduction in predictable harms to innocent others) we are prioritizing, and acknowledge that we have to make a significant sacrifice in the other one in order to do that.

kevviiinn 4y ago
Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol Not to mention, do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol If consumed in the same quantity, it might be. > do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me Botox is a neurotoxin originally derived from a bacterium. And various pesticides are regulated. Nicotine actually is a naturally occurring pesticide, though these days BigAg companies produce far more potent "Neonicotinoids" for killing insects.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Please explain the mechanism by which cannabis causes DNA damage when consumed in the same quantity as alcohol. When you match recreational dose, it doesn't. There is a slight possibility of free radicals in smoke causing DNA damage but that is incredibly minor compared to alcohol and can be avoided with different methods of consumption. You can't avoid the DNA damage of alcohol at any dose or method of consumption
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      The word I was responding to was "harmful", with no further specification. I stand by what I wrote, and don't feel the need to try to explain a point I wasn't making.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        So then what is the mechanism of harm, if you can't state what the mechanism is then what is the reason to believe the statement? Anyone can just claim something is "harmful" but if they can't really state how then why is there any reason to believe the statement

knodi123 4y ago

> If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Most people don't know a dealer, and don't have the confidence to try to find one without worrying about the risk of contacting a narc or a tattletale or in some other ways destroying their lives because of the legal system. Hurdles matter. It's like common sense gun control- red flag laws, waiting periods, assault weapon bans, etc. None of those things make it impossible to have a mass shooting - but they make it a little harder, and that will stop a certain percentage of people. Dangerous drugs like opioids should be available, cheaply, by prescription only, and "addiction" should be a sufficient reason for the prescription. This makes the safe and secure drug source the correct choice for vulnerable addicts, still lets us drive the black market and drug cartels out of business, it prevents crazy impulse purchases, and the requirement to renew your prescription periodically gives you a chance for a responsible adult to non-judgmentally offer you resources for achieving sobriety. It's a win-win-win, guaranteed to lower death tolls and crime rates, but unlikely to increase the number of addicts.