5 ms·

What baffles me is the cognitive dissonance from some of these critics - that the libertarian stance on drugs is wrong, but also the drug war is wrong.

mpyne 13y ago
How is that a cognitive dissonance? People often reason similar conclusions through different logical reasoning. In fact one of my jobs as an instructor at a military training command was to identify students who had achieved an "answer by accident" to ensure that they went and studied the actual principles behind the problem they had mistakenly hit on the right answer for.
betterunix 13y ago
I guess it depends on what you mean by the libertarian stance on drugs. If you mean that we should establish an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. On the other hand, if you mean that people should not be imprisoned for possessing, selling, or producing drugs, then you are not talking about an idea that libertarians have a monopoly on. I am opposed to the drug war, but I think that recreational drugs should be taxed and that their production and sale should be regulated. That is not cognitive dissonance, that is just a different idea about how to approach and implement drug legalization.
- baddox 13y ago
  > If you mean that we should established an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. I don't think either opposition is reasonable.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Ah, but in the case of drugs, we can compare regulated and unregulated markets, both historically and present-day. At one time the market for drugs was unregulated, and the result was a hazard to the public: drugs of unknown strength and purity, false advertising, etc. Today we have points of comparison: black market methamphetamine is produced in an unregulated fashion and tends to make people sick (or at least look very sick), while pharmaceutical methamphetamine comes in regulated dosages and with assurances of its purity; similarly, black market opiates versus prescription opiates. Even with cars, we can observe the positive effect of safety regulations. The market did not put seat belts and crumple zones into our cars; laws did, and as a result of those laws many peoples lives have been saved. So if you truly believe in the power of unregulated markets, you need to answer the question of how to deal with people who buy needlessly unsafe drugs. Likewise, what is society supposed to do about needlessly unsafe cars?
    - gojomo 13y ago
      'Black market' is not the same as 'unregulated market': a black market is specifically something that has to operate in the shadows, under constant threat, maintaining their organizations by extra-legal means. So of course its products are sketchy. Liability for defective products and false advertising is all the 'regulation' most markets need, especially now with the explosion of network- and software-aided consumer choice. Such liability, not specific to product type, is what most advocates of deregulation want. Not 'black' markets, just free and open markets – where competition, sticky reputations, and normal legal remedies against dishonesty can work as usual.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > At one time the market for drugs was unregulated, and the result was a hazard to the public: drugs of unknown strength and purity, false advertising, etc. Is it clear that the negative affects of drug abuse have been lessened by regulations and the drug war? It's not clear to me, and it's especially not clear when you consider the cost of the drug war. > similarly, black market opiates versus prescription opiates. That's because these opiates are illegal, so there's very little market pressure (from competition) and also very little recourse against abuses (you can't take your drug dealer/manufacturer to court or call the police, which is also why there's lots of violence associated with illegal drugs). In these comparisons, you also have to try to consider the cost of drug regulators like the FDA. Surely lives have directly been lost due to drugs not being approved.
rayiner 13y ago
There is no cognitive dissonance in believing the state has the right to prohibit harmful things while also believing that most drugs aren't that harmful and the drug war is overly broad and poorly executed.

mpyne 13y ago

How is that a cognitive dissonance? People often reason similar conclusions through different logical reasoning. In fact one of my jobs as an instructor at a military training command was to identify students who had achieved an "answer by accident" to ensure that they went and studied the actual principles behind the problem they had mistakenly hit on the right answer for.

betterunix 13y ago

I guess it depends on what you mean by the libertarian stance on drugs. If you mean that we should establish an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. On the other hand, if you mean that people should not be imprisoned for possessing, selling, or producing drugs, then you are not talking about an idea that libertarians have a monopoly on. I am opposed to the drug war, but I think that recreational drugs should be taxed and that their production and sale should be regulated. That is not cognitive dissonance, that is just a different idea about how to approach and implement drug legalization.

baddox 13y ago
> If you mean that we should established an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. I don't think either opposition is reasonable.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Ah, but in the case of drugs, we can compare regulated and unregulated markets, both historically and present-day. At one time the market for drugs was unregulated, and the result was a hazard to the public: drugs of unknown strength and purity, false advertising, etc. Today we have points of comparison: black market methamphetamine is produced in an unregulated fashion and tends to make people sick (or at least look very sick), while pharmaceutical methamphetamine comes in regulated dosages and with assurances of its purity; similarly, black market opiates versus prescription opiates. Even with cars, we can observe the positive effect of safety regulations. The market did not put seat belts and crumple zones into our cars; laws did, and as a result of those laws many peoples lives have been saved. So if you truly believe in the power of unregulated markets, you need to answer the question of how to deal with people who buy needlessly unsafe drugs. Likewise, what is society supposed to do about needlessly unsafe cars?
  - gojomo 13y ago
    'Black market' is not the same as 'unregulated market': a black market is specifically something that has to operate in the shadows, under constant threat, maintaining their organizations by extra-legal means. So of course its products are sketchy. Liability for defective products and false advertising is all the 'regulation' most markets need, especially now with the explosion of network- and software-aided consumer choice. Such liability, not specific to product type, is what most advocates of deregulation want. Not 'black' markets, just free and open markets – where competition, sticky reputations, and normal legal remedies against dishonesty can work as usual.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > At one time the market for drugs was unregulated, and the result was a hazard to the public: drugs of unknown strength and purity, false advertising, etc. Is it clear that the negative affects of drug abuse have been lessened by regulations and the drug war? It's not clear to me, and it's especially not clear when you consider the cost of the drug war. > similarly, black market opiates versus prescription opiates. That's because these opiates are illegal, so there's very little market pressure (from competition) and also very little recourse against abuses (you can't take your drug dealer/manufacturer to court or call the police, which is also why there's lots of violence associated with illegal drugs). In these comparisons, you also have to try to consider the cost of drug regulators like the FDA. Surely lives have directly been lost due to drugs not being approved.

rayiner 13y ago

There is no cognitive dissonance in believing the state has the right to prohibit harmful things while also believing that most drugs aren't that harmful and the drug war is overly broad and poorly executed.