3 ms·

> Their body, their choice. Why should people who can use it responsibly be denied? And worse, why should they be punished if they choose to use it regardless o

> Their body, their choice. Why should people who can use it responsibly be denied? And worse, why should they be punished if they choose to use it regardless of legality? Because we don't live in isolated universes of individuality. When they cause massive damage to their bodies and minds, that cost is not only borne by themselves but by their close circle and society at large. You can argue that prohibition is not the right approach to preventing these problems, but doing the non-optimal thing is better than doing nothing at all.

lisbbb 1y ago
This is precisely why my enthusiasm for libertarianism has waned over the years--a lot of things just don't scale and I think benevolent anarchy is one of those things. It just becomes pure anarchy with all the Mad Max horrors.
mft_ 1y ago
There are many 'everyday' activities, foods, and substances that can be shown to be harmful to the individual in the long term, and thus have a negative effect on their close circle, the healthcare system, and potentially society, but which are socially acceptable and so remain. e.g. Alcohol is worse than no alcohol, for many reasons. Smoking cigarettes, obvs. Eating meat is worse that not eating meat. Doing woodwork without breathing protection may damage your lungs. Cleaning with spray cleaning products regularly may damage your lungs. Sun exposure increases your skin cancer risk. Running is more likely to cause arthritis than cycling or swimming. Loud environments may damage your hearing. Insufficiently frequent ejaculation may increase your risk of prostate cancer. Yes, I'm being deliberately absurd to make the point, but still: where, and how, to draw the line?
zoklet-enjoyer 1y ago
It's legal in many US states to ride motorcycles without a helmet. Skydiving is legal. All kinds of legal, risky activity. I can go out and have unprotected sex with anyone willing, as long as no money is involved, and catch and spread numerous diseases. I don't see substance use as any different than other risky behaviors that people lawfully engage in daily.
s5300 1y ago
[dead]

lisbbb 1y ago

This is precisely why my enthusiasm for libertarianism has waned over the years--a lot of things just don't scale and I think benevolent anarchy is one of those things. It just becomes pure anarchy with all the Mad Max horrors.

mft_ 1y ago

There are many 'everyday' activities, foods, and substances that can be shown to be harmful to the individual in the long term, and thus have a negative effect on their close circle, the healthcare system, and potentially society, but which are socially acceptable and so remain. e.g. Alcohol is worse than no alcohol, for many reasons. Smoking cigarettes, obvs. Eating meat is worse that not eating meat. Doing woodwork without breathing protection may damage your lungs. Cleaning with spray cleaning products regularly may damage your lungs. Sun exposure increases your skin cancer risk. Running is more likely to cause arthritis than cycling or swimming. Loud environments may damage your hearing. Insufficiently frequent ejaculation may increase your risk of prostate cancer. Yes, I'm being deliberately absurd to make the point, but still: where, and how, to draw the line?

zoklet-enjoyer 1y ago

It's legal in many US states to ride motorcycles without a helmet. Skydiving is legal. All kinds of legal, risky activity. I can go out and have unprotected sex with anyone willing, as long as no money is involved, and catch and spread numerous diseases. I don't see substance use as any different than other risky behaviors that people lawfully engage in daily.

s5300 1y ago

[dead]