6 ms·

Ok, why not?

by _8j50 2y ago

Ok, why not?

manuelmoreale 2y ago
For obvious reasons related to public health and the general incapacity of human beings to regulate themselves.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  I assume you’ve ridden in a car or sat in a dark theatre.
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    Yes and the point you’re trying to make is? That as a society we allow some things that might be risky and not others? Isn’t that obvious? We try to find a balance. Or are you suggesting that since we allow people to drive cars we should also give people easy access to all drugs?
    - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
      Since you missed it, the vast majority of people can regulate their behaviour just fine and we deal with people who don’t without banning activities except for special medical exceptions.
      - manuelmoreale 2y ago
        The vast majority of people grew up in a society with regulations. You telling me you’d be happy to let people drive a car without a drivers license? How about a plane? Should we just trust people to not drive if they’re not capable? I certainly don’t want to live in that world.
        iwontberude 2y ago
        We already live in that world because of International Driver's Permit, no offense intended to any holder of such a permit.
      - dwaltrip 2y ago
        Uh, laws exist?
  - _8j50 2y ago
    Those are private properties or privileged activities. Eating poison, in your private home being regulated means your home is not truly yours and you have no liberty.
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      I’m not sure about the others in this discussion but I’m certainly not saying you shouldn’t be able to eat poison at home. I’m saying as a society we should want to try avoid selling poison freely if we know a non negligible number of people would, in fact, eat it at home and die as a result. And again, I’m not arguing for criminalizing the people who do get poison and eat it. I’m not arguing for criminalizing anyone actually. I’m arguing for sensible checks in place. Which is what we’re already doing with things like drivers licenses and medical prescriptions.
      - _8j50 2y ago
        So long as those people are adults who are functional (can care for themselves), it isn't society's business to protect them from self-harm. Your sensible checks are violations of liberty. A person's right and authority over themselves being infringed is a loss of liberty. Society gets involved when their actions affect non-consenting members of society.
- advael 2y ago
  Nonsense. Humans do fine at regulating themselves the vast overwhelming majority of the time, and edge cases worth intervening on generally involve more than one human
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    Again, “humans do fine” it’s in the context of societies with already regulations in place. Do you have an example of a society with no regulations where humans do indeed “do fine”?
    - advael 2y ago
      In the context of drug legalization? Yes. The USA prior to 1970 We didn't have these "epidemics" of drug deaths to a greater degree than we have now. Why is that?
      - manuelmoreale 2y ago
        So you telling me that before the 1970s you could buy and use any type of drugs freely, no prescription required?
        advael 2y ago
        For many substances we consider "obviously" illegal now, yes. Most famously, Coca-Cola used to use cocaine instead of the caffeine it currently has. Even for the "prescription-only" enforcement level, this used to be the purview of the FDA and the people subject to enforcement were the ones operating pharmacies, not their customers, or people who got stuff through side channels. Maybe cops still used the excuse of drug intoxication to deal with people more harshly, but they couldn't stop and search someone merely on the suspicion that they had contraband Drug enforcement should work like industry regulation and consumer protections, not operate on individuals as criminal penalties
        manuelmoreale 2y ago
- advael 2y ago
  "Obvious" is a concept that only makes sense when there is significant shared context. When it is applied to the idea that is directly in dispute, it is about as compelling an argument as "because I said so"
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    Don’t you think it’s obvious why we want regulation around consumptions of things that can genuinely bad for the population? The shared context here is population health.
    - advael 2y ago
      Perhaps that seems obvious to you. I don't view it as obvious that anyone's individual health decisions should ever be made and enforced by the state. It is obvious to me that trying to "regulate" these choices through a prohibition framework is not only ineffective, but does massive harm. However, since we're arguing about that very question, I don't feel it sufficient to merely say "it's obvious" and leave it at that. The Volstead act didn't save us from the evils of alcohol, but it did put a lot of people in jail, strengthen organized crime, and create a reactionary push for more draconian police powers. The difference now is that the Controlled Substances Act and its international equivalents are backed by more technologically powerful governments, and cover more substances. Even in the early 20th century, prohibition policies created powerful criminal cartels and draconian police states. The controlled substances act has created both in spades, and the downstream consequences are so vast that they have arguably defined the society we live in, with its mass-incarceration, constant surveillance, and at least in the US, an incredibly punishing, byzantine, and costly healthcare system
      - manuelmoreale 2y ago
        I’m not going to comment on the second part because I don’t live in the US and I have no idea what the situation is in your corner of the world on that front. As for the first part, you said you don’t agree about the state having a say in your health but the original problem was related to selling all sorts of drugs openly. Do we both agree that at some point some limitation has to be put in place otherwise some people would just abuse such a system? Or do you think we should just let people do whatever and then the role of a society is to help those who end up abusing those drugs? Because it’s happening already, people are already abusing all sorts of drugs even with some restrictions in place. And mind you, I’m not arguing for criminalization. I’m just arguing for adding at least some regulation like requiring a prescription. I see that as a good middle ground. But maybe it’s just me being raised here that makes me see things differently than you, that’s always a possibility.
- _8j50 2y ago
  So we are properties regulated by the state, even though the state is made up of laypersons?
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    No we aren’t? No idea what you’re even trying to say.
    - _8j50 2y ago
      If we aren't regulated then anti-drug laws shouldn't exist. A government made up of it's people cannot regulate it's people by virtue of having a superior self control or wisdom. How can there be liberty without this?

Ok, why not?

by _8j50 2y ago

Ok, why not?

manuelmoreale 2y ago

For obvious reasons related to public health and the general incapacity of human beings to regulate themselves.

throwthrowuknow 2y ago
I assume you’ve ridden in a car or sat in a dark theatre.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Yes and the point you’re trying to make is? That as a society we allow some things that might be risky and not others? Isn’t that obvious? We try to find a balance. Or are you suggesting that since we allow people to drive cars we should also give people easy access to all drugs?
  - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    Since you missed it, the vast majority of people can regulate their behaviour just fine and we deal with people who don’t without banning activities except for special medical exceptions.
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      The vast majority of people grew up in a society with regulations. You telling me you’d be happy to let people drive a car without a drivers license? How about a plane? Should we just trust people to not drive if they’re not capable? I certainly don’t want to live in that world.
      - iwontberude 2y ago
        We already live in that world because of International Driver's Permit, no offense intended to any holder of such a permit.
    - dwaltrip 2y ago
      Uh, laws exist?
- _8j50 2y ago
  Those are private properties or privileged activities. Eating poison, in your private home being regulated means your home is not truly yours and you have no liberty.
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    I’m not sure about the others in this discussion but I’m certainly not saying you shouldn’t be able to eat poison at home. I’m saying as a society we should want to try avoid selling poison freely if we know a non negligible number of people would, in fact, eat it at home and die as a result. And again, I’m not arguing for criminalizing the people who do get poison and eat it. I’m not arguing for criminalizing anyone actually. I’m arguing for sensible checks in place. Which is what we’re already doing with things like drivers licenses and medical prescriptions.
    - _8j50 2y ago
      So long as those people are adults who are functional (can care for themselves), it isn't society's business to protect them from self-harm. Your sensible checks are violations of liberty. A person's right and authority over themselves being infringed is a loss of liberty. Society gets involved when their actions affect non-consenting members of society.
advael 2y ago
Nonsense. Humans do fine at regulating themselves the vast overwhelming majority of the time, and edge cases worth intervening on generally involve more than one human
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Again, “humans do fine” it’s in the context of societies with already regulations in place. Do you have an example of a society with no regulations where humans do indeed “do fine”?
  - advael 2y ago
    In the context of drug legalization? Yes. The USA prior to 1970 We didn't have these "epidemics" of drug deaths to a greater degree than we have now. Why is that?
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      So you telling me that before the 1970s you could buy and use any type of drugs freely, no prescription required?
      - advael 2y ago
        For many substances we consider "obviously" illegal now, yes. Most famously, Coca-Cola used to use cocaine instead of the caffeine it currently has. Even for the "prescription-only" enforcement level, this used to be the purview of the FDA and the people subject to enforcement were the ones operating pharmacies, not their customers, or people who got stuff through side channels. Maybe cops still used the excuse of drug intoxication to deal with people more harshly, but they couldn't stop and search someone merely on the suspicion that they had contraband Drug enforcement should work like industry regulation and consumer protections, not operate on individuals as criminal penalties
        manuelmoreale 2y ago
advael 2y ago
"Obvious" is a concept that only makes sense when there is significant shared context. When it is applied to the idea that is directly in dispute, it is about as compelling an argument as "because I said so"
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Don’t you think it’s obvious why we want regulation around consumptions of things that can genuinely bad for the population? The shared context here is population health.
  - advael 2y ago
    Perhaps that seems obvious to you. I don't view it as obvious that anyone's individual health decisions should ever be made and enforced by the state. It is obvious to me that trying to "regulate" these choices through a prohibition framework is not only ineffective, but does massive harm. However, since we're arguing about that very question, I don't feel it sufficient to merely say "it's obvious" and leave it at that. The Volstead act didn't save us from the evils of alcohol, but it did put a lot of people in jail, strengthen organized crime, and create a reactionary push for more draconian police powers. The difference now is that the Controlled Substances Act and its international equivalents are backed by more technologically powerful governments, and cover more substances. Even in the early 20th century, prohibition policies created powerful criminal cartels and draconian police states. The controlled substances act has created both in spades, and the downstream consequences are so vast that they have arguably defined the society we live in, with its mass-incarceration, constant surveillance, and at least in the US, an incredibly punishing, byzantine, and costly healthcare system
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      I’m not going to comment on the second part because I don’t live in the US and I have no idea what the situation is in your corner of the world on that front. As for the first part, you said you don’t agree about the state having a say in your health but the original problem was related to selling all sorts of drugs openly. Do we both agree that at some point some limitation has to be put in place otherwise some people would just abuse such a system? Or do you think we should just let people do whatever and then the role of a society is to help those who end up abusing those drugs? Because it’s happening already, people are already abusing all sorts of drugs even with some restrictions in place. And mind you, I’m not arguing for criminalization. I’m just arguing for adding at least some regulation like requiring a prescription. I see that as a good middle ground. But maybe it’s just me being raised here that makes me see things differently than you, that’s always a possibility.
_8j50 2y ago
So we are properties regulated by the state, even though the state is made up of laypersons?
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  No we aren’t? No idea what you’re even trying to say.
  - _8j50 2y ago
    If we aren't regulated then anti-drug laws shouldn't exist. A government made up of it's people cannot regulate it's people by virtue of having a superior self control or wisdom. How can there be liberty without this?