11 ms·

It's wonderful knowing there are people out there ready to police my body and my lifestyle! Truly, what's better than to be protected from myself, for my own go

It's wonderful knowing there are people out there ready to police my body and my lifestyle! Truly, what's better than to be protected from myself, for my own good of course! (And the kids of other people, god forbids they see something bad on the streets) Freedom never felt more free, now in the year of our lord 2024. I grew up in a totalitarian regime; to see the same authoritarian streaks being now replicated by westerners is mind blowing. They told us how to live, how to cut our hair, what to think, moment after moment, day after day, year after year after year, all for this idea of "harmonious society", a society in their image, crushing any individuality, any originality. Is it so hard to live and let live?

rootusrootus 3y ago
> Is it so hard to live and let live? No, it is easy. As long as the junkies have the same courtesy towards the rest of us.
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  That's also easy: the junkies just want drugs. They don't care about the rest of us at all. If the junkies had access to the drugs they wanted, you won't see them on the streets, they will be in an institution somewhere, being high. The problems start when the junkies don't have access to their drugs...
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Or...they need money to fuel their addiction which is simultaneously preventing them from finding gainful employment.
    - yard2010 3y ago
      That's a huge over simplification IMO! Addiction problems often come with personality traits that correlate being jobless and miserable. As humans I believe we should solve these problems logically, holistically with love and empathy.
      - paulddraper 3y ago
        The employability of an alcoholic increases dramatically after recovering from alcoholism.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Which institution? Most homeless shelters and mental hospitals don't allow recreational drug use or possession on the premises, and I doubt those policies would change even if drugs were legalized. And most drug addicts can't hold down a stable job to pay for private housing regardless of legal status. I generally think legalization is a good idea. But junkies are always going to be a burden who live on the margins of society and survive by leeching off the rest of us (crime, welfare, donations).
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    > If the junkies had access to the drugs they wanted, you won't see them on the streets, they will be in an institution somewhere, being high. Your proposal is that we open institutions where people can live, eat, sleep, presumably have all of their needs met, and also do as many drugs as they want all day? There is no way this theoretical free-housing-with-drugs institution would do anything but increase the number of people abusing drugs and decrease the odds of getting them back on their feet. Can't pay your rent this month? Well if you get addicted to drugs, you get free drugs and free everything at the Free Drugs Institution... Want to leave the Free Drugs Institution? Oh you don't have any money to get a place of your own and getting a job while you're in the throes of addiction is hard, so you might as well stay at the Free Drugs Institution... Every single one of these theories relies on the number of drug addicts remaining fixed, but they always ignore the fact that you can't remove all of the costs of doing drugs without dramatically increasing the number of people doing drugs, relapsing, or stuck in addiction cycles.
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure the free drugs institution is in fact the street, and the drugs are only free in the sense that they're bought with the proceeds of crime. I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me (and I speak as someone who does like the occasional drug, legal or otherwise, in moderation of course). You could also imagine a path out like halfway houses or that sort of thing, but obviously it's a non-starter in the US.
      - Aurornis 3y ago
        > I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me You presumably aren't the target audience. There are a lot of people who are working hard to stay clean and keep their addictions at bay because the costs of being addicted are too high: They lose their job, their housing, their ability to support themselves, and their future. If you offered these people a way to do drugs for free, and a place to stay for free while they did those drugs, the incentives change dramatically. Drug addicts are also very good at lying to themselves. You'd get people telling themselves they'd only go in "for a couple days" or "for a month or two" who would end up in there for years and years.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Just today I read a news story about a junkie who went out in the street in his neighborhood and started shooting at people. Every bit of evidence suggests he was high as a kite. Luckily he didn't injure anyone, just did some property damage putting bullet holes in cars. He ended his existence by taking shots at the police when they showed up. Some guy stoned out of his mind on weed may be harmless, but this is not universally true with all drugs and all people. And your idea lacks an explanation for who will pay for all these free drugs. What's in it for me, as a productive member of society, to finance those drug habits?
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I mean just today I read a new story about a dude that was high on political outrage and went and shot up a school, caused a lot of damage and death. Sounds like politics is pretty harmful. What's in it for me as a member of the political mainstream if we allow these dangerous political views that upset our social harmony?
riscy 3y ago
I won't stand for your right to become a meth head or fentanyl addict. Addiction is a dangerous disease and we should protect everyone from falling into that trap and harming themselves and others around them. Living in a society is by definition not about granting total independence and freedom.
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  How about the right to open loot boxes? Play gacha games? Play the lottery? Watch porn 24/7? Jerk off 24/7? Be childless? Be an alcoholic? Play games 24/7? Climb without a safety harness?
  - orthoxerox 3y ago
    No, no, no, yes (with reservations) to the rest of them.
    - yard2010 3y ago
      Well the internet is for porn, not gambling. But safety first, then teamwork so
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    The only one of those that I do is be childless, and I have to say I don't really get why that's in with the rest.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >and I have to say I don't really get why that's in with the rest Because it's another one of those things that "your betters" think they control about your life, and with the attempted rollback of things like abortion rights in many places is very relevant. Also we're seeing news out of asian countries of fertility rates falling below 1 you should really expect the more authoritarian governments to say "Have a kid or have a problem" pretty soon.
bb88 3y ago
One just needs to look at the history of drugs in America to come to that conclusion. People often do crimes they wouldn't do if they weren't hyped up on drugs -- and that affects people who don't do drugs. Now the question is how do we police it? Throwing drug users in prison doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. We really want to go after the dealers, the people who get users hooked and strung out.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  [dead]
- pixl97 3y ago
  So there are two different things that need to be looked at. First order crimes. For example drinking, then getting in a crash would be a first order crime of alcohol use. A second order crime could be something like stealing money to buy your next beer, or running an illegal bootlegging operation. In deciding how to police the issue, the last thing you want to consider is punishment, and the first you want to consider is harm reduction. Going after dealers just doesn't fucking work. We've been spending billions on it, and in doing so we have a non-stop line of dealers and manufactures making more deadly and addictive concoctions every day. The more you bust the dealers, the more the price goes up, the more stealing occurs by the users, the and more corruption of law enforcement by the dealers paying people off because of the huge sums of money involved happen. As they say "There was a war on drugs, drugs won".
  - nojster 3y ago
    Agreeing on this one. State should sell any kind of addictive substance, which would immediately yield benefits: 1. (Large parts of) Funding of organized crime would dry up and the state would get extra income via tax 2. Addicts know they can get their fix and hence can take up regular work 3. Substances would be cleaner and thus safer for consumption (easing the burden of the health care system) Not saying that there are no downsides to this, but the downsides have to be weighed against the upsides and in my book the upsides outweigh the downsides.
  - 3y ago
yard2010 3y ago
Well sure but then you can virtually forget about humanity's best cheat - collective universal health insurance. There has to be a balance between live and let live and just living off other people
badpun 3y ago
I would be ok with people wrecking one's health on the condition that it means they automatically lose any rights to the state's help (health care, housing, any kind of direct cash handouts etc.). I don't think we should other people's stupidity. What's more, it creates a moral hazard (it's ok to wreck my own life, as the nanny state will come to rescue me anyway).
- nojster 3y ago
  That’s a very fine line to walk. The same reasoning could be applied to speeding (actively endangering others), overeating (actively endangering yourself), hunting, snowboarding, skydiving (or any other activity which increases your likelihood of having and accident and hence burdening the health care system beyond the national average).
  - badpun 3y ago
    I agree, but we should start having this discussion nonetheless. As is now, the state is encouraging dangerous and reckless behaviours, which is contrary of its intentions.
- pixl97 3y ago
  So paying for their prison time isn't a direct cash handout to the prison industrial complex? As for your point of view I really have to reply with a more aggressive "Too fucking bad, you're paying one way or another". I run into too many people with your point of view that if you just pretend like this wrecked human doesn't exist that they immediately vanish from the reality in which we exist and no longer present a problem to anyone.
RestlessMind 3y ago
> Is it so hard to live and let live? Only if "live and let live" goes both ways. Junkies make it a drain on their family and social circle to support them. They also mess up the public spaces and make those unlivable (looking at you, SF). If they behaved within limits of socially acceptable behavior, I would support "live and let live" when it comes to drugs.
- InSteady 3y ago
  I guarantee for every "homeless junkie" in SF or any city, there are dozens if not hundreds of functional and semi-functional substance users. Don't get me wrong, the nature of some drugs, especially heroin/fent, meth, cocaine, and alcohol, mean a significant percentage of users are going to completely fuck up their lives and the lives of those around them due to addiction. It's weird how with illegal drugs we tend to blame the drug and the user, whereas with alcoholics, nicotine addicts, etc we tend to only blame the user. Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics? Believe me, they also make a mess of themselves and the neighborhoods they camp out in. Anyway. Addiction is a beast. But using intoxicants to escape, augment, and/or enhance reality is a basic part of human (and animal) nature. On HN we all love to talk about incentives guiding behavior. Well when your life has been shit and likely will be shit indefinitely (due to health, social, economic, and other factors), perhaps in spite of any effort you are capable of implementing, the incentive to get some kind of enjoyment out of it anyway, regardless of the cost, is pretty damn high.
  - RestlessMind 3y ago
    > with alcoholics, nicotine addicts, etc we tend to only blame the user. I see alcohol, nicotine, guns etc regulated heavily where I live. So yes, society does take those things seriously too. > Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics? Of course, if they create public nuisance.
- broscillator 3y ago
  Cars kill and maul people, destroy infrastructure, pollute the environment, definitely mess up public spaces.

rootusrootus 3y ago

> Is it so hard to live and let live? No, it is easy. As long as the junkies have the same courtesy towards the rest of us.

GeoAtreides 3y ago
That's also easy: the junkies just want drugs. They don't care about the rest of us at all. If the junkies had access to the drugs they wanted, you won't see them on the streets, they will be in an institution somewhere, being high. The problems start when the junkies don't have access to their drugs...
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Or...they need money to fuel their addiction which is simultaneously preventing them from finding gainful employment.
  - yard2010 3y ago
    That's a huge over simplification IMO! Addiction problems often come with personality traits that correlate being jobless and miserable. As humans I believe we should solve these problems logically, holistically with love and empathy.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      The employability of an alcoholic increases dramatically after recovering from alcoholism.
- nradov 3y ago
  Which institution? Most homeless shelters and mental hospitals don't allow recreational drug use or possession on the premises, and I doubt those policies would change even if drugs were legalized. And most drug addicts can't hold down a stable job to pay for private housing regardless of legal status. I generally think legalization is a good idea. But junkies are always going to be a burden who live on the margins of society and survive by leeching off the rest of us (crime, welfare, donations).
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > If the junkies had access to the drugs they wanted, you won't see them on the streets, they will be in an institution somewhere, being high. Your proposal is that we open institutions where people can live, eat, sleep, presumably have all of their needs met, and also do as many drugs as they want all day? There is no way this theoretical free-housing-with-drugs institution would do anything but increase the number of people abusing drugs and decrease the odds of getting them back on their feet. Can't pay your rent this month? Well if you get addicted to drugs, you get free drugs and free everything at the Free Drugs Institution... Want to leave the Free Drugs Institution? Oh you don't have any money to get a place of your own and getting a job while you're in the throes of addiction is hard, so you might as well stay at the Free Drugs Institution... Every single one of these theories relies on the number of drug addicts remaining fixed, but they always ignore the fact that you can't remove all of the costs of doing drugs without dramatically increasing the number of people doing drugs, relapsing, or stuck in addiction cycles.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure the free drugs institution is in fact the street, and the drugs are only free in the sense that they're bought with the proceeds of crime. I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me (and I speak as someone who does like the occasional drug, legal or otherwise, in moderation of course). You could also imagine a path out like halfway houses or that sort of thing, but obviously it's a non-starter in the US.
    - Aurornis 3y ago
      > I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me You presumably aren't the target audience. There are a lot of people who are working hard to stay clean and keep their addictions at bay because the costs of being addicted are too high: They lose their job, their housing, their ability to support themselves, and their future. If you offered these people a way to do drugs for free, and a place to stay for free while they did those drugs, the incentives change dramatically. Drug addicts are also very good at lying to themselves. You'd get people telling themselves they'd only go in "for a couple days" or "for a month or two" who would end up in there for years and years.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Just today I read a news story about a junkie who went out in the street in his neighborhood and started shooting at people. Every bit of evidence suggests he was high as a kite. Luckily he didn't injure anyone, just did some property damage putting bullet holes in cars. He ended his existence by taking shots at the police when they showed up. Some guy stoned out of his mind on weed may be harmless, but this is not universally true with all drugs and all people. And your idea lacks an explanation for who will pay for all these free drugs. What's in it for me, as a productive member of society, to finance those drug habits?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I mean just today I read a new story about a dude that was high on political outrage and went and shot up a school, caused a lot of damage and death. Sounds like politics is pretty harmful. What's in it for me as a member of the political mainstream if we allow these dangerous political views that upset our social harmony?

riscy 3y ago

I won't stand for your right to become a meth head or fentanyl addict. Addiction is a dangerous disease and we should protect everyone from falling into that trap and harming themselves and others around them. Living in a society is by definition not about granting total independence and freedom.

GeoAtreides 3y ago
How about the right to open loot boxes? Play gacha games? Play the lottery? Watch porn 24/7? Jerk off 24/7? Be childless? Be an alcoholic? Play games 24/7? Climb without a safety harness?
- orthoxerox 3y ago
  No, no, no, yes (with reservations) to the rest of them.
  - yard2010 3y ago
    Well the internet is for porn, not gambling. But safety first, then teamwork so
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  The only one of those that I do is be childless, and I have to say I don't really get why that's in with the rest.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >and I have to say I don't really get why that's in with the rest Because it's another one of those things that "your betters" think they control about your life, and with the attempted rollback of things like abortion rights in many places is very relevant. Also we're seeing news out of asian countries of fertility rates falling below 1 you should really expect the more authoritarian governments to say "Have a kid or have a problem" pretty soon.

bb88 3y ago

One just needs to look at the history of drugs in America to come to that conclusion. People often do crimes they wouldn't do if they weren't hyped up on drugs -- and that affects people who don't do drugs. Now the question is how do we police it? Throwing drug users in prison doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. We really want to go after the dealers, the people who get users hooked and strung out.

sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
[dead]
pixl97 3y ago
So there are two different things that need to be looked at. First order crimes. For example drinking, then getting in a crash would be a first order crime of alcohol use. A second order crime could be something like stealing money to buy your next beer, or running an illegal bootlegging operation. In deciding how to police the issue, the last thing you want to consider is punishment, and the first you want to consider is harm reduction. Going after dealers just doesn't fucking work. We've been spending billions on it, and in doing so we have a non-stop line of dealers and manufactures making more deadly and addictive concoctions every day. The more you bust the dealers, the more the price goes up, the more stealing occurs by the users, the and more corruption of law enforcement by the dealers paying people off because of the huge sums of money involved happen. As they say "There was a war on drugs, drugs won".
- nojster 3y ago
  Agreeing on this one. State should sell any kind of addictive substance, which would immediately yield benefits: 1. (Large parts of) Funding of organized crime would dry up and the state would get extra income via tax 2. Addicts know they can get their fix and hence can take up regular work 3. Substances would be cleaner and thus safer for consumption (easing the burden of the health care system) Not saying that there are no downsides to this, but the downsides have to be weighed against the upsides and in my book the upsides outweigh the downsides.
- 3y ago

yard2010 3y ago

Well sure but then you can virtually forget about humanity's best cheat - collective universal health insurance. There has to be a balance between live and let live and just living off other people

badpun 3y ago

I would be ok with people wrecking one's health on the condition that it means they automatically lose any rights to the state's help (health care, housing, any kind of direct cash handouts etc.). I don't think we should other people's stupidity. What's more, it creates a moral hazard (it's ok to wreck my own life, as the nanny state will come to rescue me anyway).

nojster 3y ago
That’s a very fine line to walk. The same reasoning could be applied to speeding (actively endangering others), overeating (actively endangering yourself), hunting, snowboarding, skydiving (or any other activity which increases your likelihood of having and accident and hence burdening the health care system beyond the national average).
- badpun 3y ago
  I agree, but we should start having this discussion nonetheless. As is now, the state is encouraging dangerous and reckless behaviours, which is contrary of its intentions.
pixl97 3y ago
So paying for their prison time isn't a direct cash handout to the prison industrial complex? As for your point of view I really have to reply with a more aggressive "Too fucking bad, you're paying one way or another". I run into too many people with your point of view that if you just pretend like this wrecked human doesn't exist that they immediately vanish from the reality in which we exist and no longer present a problem to anyone.

RestlessMind 3y ago

> Is it so hard to live and let live? Only if "live and let live" goes both ways. Junkies make it a drain on their family and social circle to support them. They also mess up the public spaces and make those unlivable (looking at you, SF). If they behaved within limits of socially acceptable behavior, I would support "live and let live" when it comes to drugs.

InSteady 3y ago
I guarantee for every "homeless junkie" in SF or any city, there are dozens if not hundreds of functional and semi-functional substance users. Don't get me wrong, the nature of some drugs, especially heroin/fent, meth, cocaine, and alcohol, mean a significant percentage of users are going to completely fuck up their lives and the lives of those around them due to addiction. It's weird how with illegal drugs we tend to blame the drug and the user, whereas with alcoholics, nicotine addicts, etc we tend to only blame the user. Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics? Believe me, they also make a mess of themselves and the neighborhoods they camp out in. Anyway. Addiction is a beast. But using intoxicants to escape, augment, and/or enhance reality is a basic part of human (and animal) nature. On HN we all love to talk about incentives guiding behavior. Well when your life has been shit and likely will be shit indefinitely (due to health, social, economic, and other factors), perhaps in spite of any effort you are capable of implementing, the incentive to get some kind of enjoyment out of it anyway, regardless of the cost, is pretty damn high.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > with alcoholics, nicotine addicts, etc we tend to only blame the user. I see alcohol, nicotine, guns etc regulated heavily where I live. So yes, society does take those things seriously too. > Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics? Of course, if they create public nuisance.
broscillator 3y ago
Cars kill and maul people, destroy infrastructure, pollute the environment, definitely mess up public spaces.