4 ms·

Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. You could also easily just slap liability to the seller of known harmful substances (see the sibling to your com

Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. You could also easily just slap liability to the seller of known harmful substances (see the sibling to your comment) or enforce warning labels as on tobacco products (eg "this product makes you shoot people and shooting people will get your thrown in jail").

immibis 3y ago
> Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. Wouldn't it be good to prevent the shootings before they happen?
- KAMSPioneer 3y ago
  Sure it would. Ohhh, ya got me. But this thread is about how the cure is often worse than the disease with prohibition. See: 18th Amendment, War on Drugs. Concocting a hypothetical scenario where the drug is Disney-villian evil and enforcement is not an unmitigated disaster is hardly a decisive rhetorical victory, wouldn't you say?
  - immibis 3y ago
    It's a rhetorical victory against outright banning all prohibition of substances.
  - lucianbr 3y ago
    The proposed constitutional amendment would fail hard in the given hypothetical situation. There was no "often" or any other nuance in it. It _is_ a decisive rhetorical victory, even if you don't like it.
    - KAMSPioneer 3y ago
      Is it? My point is twofold: 1) The scenario proposed seems...outlandish. I could argue for a host of provisions in law or the Constitution based on the possibility of widespread development of bulletproof skin, but I fail to see the utility of doing so. 2) Even within the hypothetical, it is possible (I would argue probable) that banning the evil rage drug would simply make the situation worse than alternative solutions, in which case the proposed amendment would be a positive. Edit: You could argue that the above amendment is also ridiculously unlikely to pass and isn't worth debating either. You'd probably be right.
rightbyte 3y ago
You also will get problems with pesticides etc that are really bad for the environment with an dogmatic ban ban on drugs.
HPsquared 3y ago
Slapping liability seems like a good strategy for a lot of things.

immibis 3y ago

> Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. Wouldn't it be good to prevent the shootings before they happen?

KAMSPioneer 3y ago
Sure it would. Ohhh, ya got me. But this thread is about how the cure is often worse than the disease with prohibition. See: 18th Amendment, War on Drugs. Concocting a hypothetical scenario where the drug is Disney-villian evil and enforcement is not an unmitigated disaster is hardly a decisive rhetorical victory, wouldn't you say?
- immibis 3y ago
  It's a rhetorical victory against outright banning all prohibition of substances.
- lucianbr 3y ago
  The proposed constitutional amendment would fail hard in the given hypothetical situation. There was no "often" or any other nuance in it. It _is_ a decisive rhetorical victory, even if you don't like it.
  - KAMSPioneer 3y ago
    Is it? My point is twofold: 1) The scenario proposed seems...outlandish. I could argue for a host of provisions in law or the Constitution based on the possibility of widespread development of bulletproof skin, but I fail to see the utility of doing so. 2) Even within the hypothetical, it is possible (I would argue probable) that banning the evil rage drug would simply make the situation worse than alternative solutions, in which case the proposed amendment would be a positive. Edit: You could argue that the above amendment is also ridiculously unlikely to pass and isn't worth debating either. You'd probably be right.

rightbyte 3y ago

You also will get problems with pesticides etc that are really bad for the environment with an dogmatic ban ban on drugs.

HPsquared 3y ago

Slapping liability seems like a good strategy for a lot of things.