3 ms·
You have confused someone being able to convincingly walk down a certain line of logic for that person actually believing that line of logic. The author states
by hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
You have confused someone being able to convincingly walk down a certain line of logic for that person actually believing that line of logic. The author states one of many reasons right afterwards why he thinks that is a really bad idea:
>Why, though, shouldn’t we just double-down on orthodox prohibitionist remedies? Because you wind up punishing a vastly larger number of innocent people, that’s why. [...] When you ban intoxicants, you conceivably reduce abuse, but you definitely end up punishing an enormous number of innocent hobbyists - as well as the professionals who supply them.
I linked that page because, when I was an alcoholic, I was also an asshole to the people around me. I mooched off my parents, deeply worried my brothers, and refused to pull my own weight even a little bit in the household economy.
But there are plenty of people who drink alcohol who are not assholes because of it. They should not be thrown under the bus because I personally become an asshole when exposed to the substance.
- immibis 1y agoThe author recommends zero penalties for production or use of mind-altering substances, and infinitely harsher penalties for addicts. Because people are perfectly rational beings, especially when using mind-altering substances, they'll look ahead at the penalties and decide not to be addicts. That's the author's argument, and it's obviously completely wrong. The war on drugs has been a failure, but giving addicts the death penalty (as opposed to helping them stop being addicts) isn't very good either.