3 ms·

It seems like, as a society, we're moving more toward "personal freedom" -- which includes "personal responsibility". Like: we used to ban alcohol, betting and

by timmg 2y ago

It seems like, as a society, we're moving more toward "personal freedom" -- which includes "personal responsibility". Like: we used to ban alcohol, betting and drugs. But we unbanned alcohol and betting and are moving towards decriminalization of drugs. Not saying one way is right or wrong (I can see arguments on both sides, and I personally prefer having freedom). But it does seem the general trend in (US) society these days.

ausbah 2y ago
i think society should allow someone to partake in those activities because like you said personal freedom. but many if not all of those activities can develop into addiction which is a form of disease - so society should also heavily disentivize their usage. taxes, prohibited advertisement, can only get from certain places, etc
- jermaustin1 2y ago
  I can't wait for the unlicensed Twinkie dispensaries to start sprouting up.
unclad5968 2y ago
Wouldnt that just hurt the people prone to addiction? If I'm not addicted to alcohol and a huge tax is implemented then I'll just stop drinking. If I am addicted my problem has just been exacerbated because my addiction is now more expensive. I guess it might stop people from experimenting to begin with.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  It's not a binary thing, addiction is very dynamic, especially alcohol because of its ubiquity in the west. Nearly all alcoholics no matter how bad once had a fairly typical usage pattern, often for many years or decades before something changed and they lost control of it. Changes to lifestyle, stress, recreation patterns, and access can all be factors in it spiraling out, and once you're there it's hard to gently wind it back. It's difficult to compare directly because a lot of the places with intentionally high taxes on alcohol also have strong public healthcare systems. But even simple measures like municipal ordinances against selling sub-500ml containers of hard liquor show small but clear results in reducing addiction rates. In any case the consensus among addiction medicine professionals right now seems to be in favor of this sort of "soft restriction" public health policy.
- mock-possum 2y ago
  Legalization hurts people prone to addiction - prohibition hurts people prone to moderation. Do we prevent some from having a bad experience, at the expense of others having a good experience? Or do we allow some to have a good experience, at the experience of others having a bad experience? I’m a bit of a hedonist so i very strongly favour the latter.
standardUser 2y ago
We can have both. We can have broad access to all manor of food and drugs AND we can have strict labelling and advertising standards. We all know the entire concept of market capitalism is based on accurate and available information for marketplace participants, yet we keep letting the dominant participants manipulate the dissemination of information for their own benefit and to the detriment of consumers.

by timmg 2y ago

ausbah 2y ago

i think society should allow someone to partake in those activities because like you said personal freedom. but many if not all of those activities can develop into addiction which is a form of disease - so society should also heavily disentivize their usage. taxes, prohibited advertisement, can only get from certain places, etc

jermaustin1 2y ago
I can't wait for the unlicensed Twinkie dispensaries to start sprouting up.

unclad5968 2y ago

Wouldnt that just hurt the people prone to addiction? If I'm not addicted to alcohol and a huge tax is implemented then I'll just stop drinking. If I am addicted my problem has just been exacerbated because my addiction is now more expensive. I guess it might stop people from experimenting to begin with.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
It's not a binary thing, addiction is very dynamic, especially alcohol because of its ubiquity in the west. Nearly all alcoholics no matter how bad once had a fairly typical usage pattern, often for many years or decades before something changed and they lost control of it. Changes to lifestyle, stress, recreation patterns, and access can all be factors in it spiraling out, and once you're there it's hard to gently wind it back. It's difficult to compare directly because a lot of the places with intentionally high taxes on alcohol also have strong public healthcare systems. But even simple measures like municipal ordinances against selling sub-500ml containers of hard liquor show small but clear results in reducing addiction rates. In any case the consensus among addiction medicine professionals right now seems to be in favor of this sort of "soft restriction" public health policy.
mock-possum 2y ago
Legalization hurts people prone to addiction - prohibition hurts people prone to moderation. Do we prevent some from having a bad experience, at the expense of others having a good experience? Or do we allow some to have a good experience, at the experience of others having a bad experience? I’m a bit of a hedonist so i very strongly favour the latter.

standardUser 2y ago

We can have both. We can have broad access to all manor of food and drugs AND we can have strict labelling and advertising standards. We all know the entire concept of market capitalism is based on accurate and available information for marketplace participants, yet we keep letting the dominant participants manipulate the dissemination of information for their own benefit and to the detriment of consumers.