3 ms·

Hi, I'll try to keep this short as we're getting towards an understanding of each other's positions and even a surprising level of agreement (with one exception

Hi, I'll try to keep this short as we're getting towards an understanding of each other's positions and even a surprising level of agreement (with one exception) >> if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used? > i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still. You might be surprised that alcohol is not a low-risk drug by some measures. I certainly don't consider it to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_harm_assessment_of_drugs_radar_plot.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_harm_assessment_... Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here. I would tend to agree with that, given my limited experiences with LSD, and fairly long experience with MDMA. Mind, any prat can abuse any drug. > however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems. I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work; I want them to be considered for legalisation based on relative harm. Again, see the above link. >> The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others. > but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others. First up I completely agree with you "i don't care what someone does to themselves" and "your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom" but where I can't find agreement at all is "horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect". The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society and that is the ripple. Motorcycle accidents can be horrible even when they don't kill, and they do. Many other things. I'm afraid we may have to remain apart on this. (edit: by 'how it affects others' you might mean at a strictly personal level eg. direct violence against another. To me, any cost even on people who've never met the foolish drug user/unlucky horse rider, counts) > if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level ("touch the booze again, Fred, and you go to prison"), but that might work. I'd also like to add from experience that violence without alcohol is very doable. And ditto the converse. > alcohol and stress do not mix. Alcohol for some can be a very good stress reliever for short-term stress. Not me though, but certainly some. > so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief. Agreed, but some people don't have that option. > I have a delightful range of ... > i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol. One takes one's crutches where one can find them, the world isn't perfect. And frankly, I did just plain enjoy them when things weren't so crap. > but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest. That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs, you might be surprised to hear. > project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely. I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad – well, that's my opinion anyway! > but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society...social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole. Agreed. > exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here. snap > as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. ... and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities. Again, we're going to have to remain separate on this. The damage caused by MDMA is statistically very low, and could be greatly reduced almost to nothing by education and quality controls. It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does. Well that's my impression. And either way, that's your position and I respect it, and maybe it's me seeing it through the wrong end of the telescope. I'm very happy with this discussion, and I really want to thank you for taking the time and giving me a thoughtful and measured response from the other side. That is what I really want from HN, and don't often get it in this area! That really was excellent and the world feels a tiny bit saner now.

em-bee 3y ago
You might be surprised that alcohol is not a low-risk drug by some measures i am aware of that. i am using alcohol simply as a baseline. any other substance must not pose any higher risk. ideally less even. Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here i was not aware of that, but i guess the realization of this is why more and more places are considering making such drugs legal. I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work i was mainly talking about alcohol here. since alcohol is very easy to make, all that banning gets you is moonshine. The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society i disagree with that. sure, it costs insurance, and taxes, but noone else got hurt. if as a society we can't bear that cost then we'd have to ban almost all outdoor activities because they all carry some risk of injury. the result would be a very oppressive society. the cost that i worry about is the personal tragedy that results from being an innocent victim. horseriding does not cause bystanders to get hurt. motorcycles rarely do, but drugs and alcohol do, as do cars and guns (and gambling). I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level that won't work simply because by the time the relevant institutions to make that judgement are able to intervene the damage is already done. we need solutions that prevent the abuse from the beginning. only education and restricting access for anyone can do that. > but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest. That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs neither would i. but the alternative is to increase investment into education and healthcare ten-fold or more even. which is something i would absolutely support and prefer over allowing the use of drugs for self-medication. but that is much harder to achive. i am fighting for that though, whereas i am not fighting for drugs to be legalized. i merely allow that to happen by not fighting against it either. > project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely. I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad well this is another point where we are going disagree, which is fine. basically i believe that using substances to alter your state of mind is a bad idea and should only be done under medical supervision and when necessary. (but again, i don't want to make a law out of this, unless it is necessary to protect innocent victims). but this is a whole topic of its own that i am not quite ready to argue here because i am not familiar enough with the details. It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does. i am more lenient on some activities because they are supported by the current consensus in society. if it were up to me, i'd eliminate any alcohol, smoking, gambling, private cars and guns from this planet. because they are all dangerous to bystanders and there are better ways to handle the problems they solve. ultimately, no matter what choice we make, what matters is that as a society we will only make progress if we find consensus on the major issues that we face today. because only through consensus are we able to change direction if we find that some choice was a bad idea. we are struggling with a lot of issues because we waste energy on fighting each other instead of looking forward.

em-bee 3y ago

You might be surprised that alcohol is not a low-risk drug by some measures i am aware of that. i am using alcohol simply as a baseline. any other substance must not pose any higher risk. ideally less even. Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here i was not aware of that, but i guess the realization of this is why more and more places are considering making such drugs legal. I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work i was mainly talking about alcohol here. since alcohol is very easy to make, all that banning gets you is moonshine. The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society i disagree with that. sure, it costs insurance, and taxes, but noone else got hurt. if as a society we can't bear that cost then we'd have to ban almost all outdoor activities because they all carry some risk of injury. the result would be a very oppressive society. the cost that i worry about is the personal tragedy that results from being an innocent victim. horseriding does not cause bystanders to get hurt. motorcycles rarely do, but drugs and alcohol do, as do cars and guns (and gambling). I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level that won't work simply because by the time the relevant institutions to make that judgement are able to intervene the damage is already done. we need solutions that prevent the abuse from the beginning. only education and restricting access for anyone can do that. > but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest. That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs neither would i. but the alternative is to increase investment into education and healthcare ten-fold or more even. which is something i would absolutely support and prefer over allowing the use of drugs for self-medication. but that is much harder to achive. i am fighting for that though, whereas i am not fighting for drugs to be legalized. i merely allow that to happen by not fighting against it either. > project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely. I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad well this is another point where we are going disagree, which is fine. basically i believe that using substances to alter your state of mind is a bad idea and should only be done under medical supervision and when necessary. (but again, i don't want to make a law out of this, unless it is necessary to protect innocent victims). but this is a whole topic of its own that i am not quite ready to argue here because i am not familiar enough with the details. It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does. i am more lenient on some activities because they are supported by the current consensus in society. if it were up to me, i'd eliminate any alcohol, smoking, gambling, private cars and guns from this planet. because they are all dangerous to bystanders and there are better ways to handle the problems they solve. ultimately, no matter what choice we make, what matters is that as a society we will only make progress if we find consensus on the major issues that we face today. because only through consensus are we able to change direction if we find that some choice was a bad idea. we are struggling with a lot of issues because we waste energy on fighting each other instead of looking forward.