4 ms·

> I don't know. What I do know is that we should let people use/do what they want to their bodies. Will this have negative effects? Sure, they might, they might

> I don't know. What I do know is that we should let people use/do what they want to their bodies. Will this have negative effects? Sure, they might, they might not. Personal choice trumps any sort of wide/vague societal benefits, otherwise society is just a bunch of tyrants. As long as what individuals do doesn't physically harm anyone, then they should be allowed to do it. Eh, I dunno. I can see both sides of it. I worry that heroin is basically an advertiser's wet dream and you'd see all sorts of shady shit encouraging addiction. On the other hand we've already semi-successfully navigated those waters with tobacco. But then, I don't see people on the street in the bronx willing to blow someone for a cigarette. Maybe that's because it's legal. I dunno. Seems like something we should investigate before making policy decisions. There're a lot of factors to be considered and "personal choice trumps all" is just as silly of an axiom as the opposite. There's a plethora of disallowed personal choices that the vast majority of people would agree are net positives for society, if only because "doesn't harm anyone else" is a very gray area.

ObviousScience 12y ago
Do you think those advertisers will be more effective than the current generation of street pushers that try to get your high school kids addicted? As a high school kid (a decade ago), it was FAR easier to get marijuana, opiate pills, shrooms, and other drugs than it was to get alcohol, because alcohol required that we go through someone we knew personally not invested in the criminal market for their income, and was vaguely watched by the government (since they could regulate the caution the stores took). > There's a plethora of disallowed personal choices that the vast majority of people would agree are net positives for society, if only because "doesn't harm anyone else" is a very gray area. And being gay should be discouraged because it spreads AIDS. The simple fact is that drug use doesn't require any risks to the public that we don't allow already for other substances, drugs are already being used by almost everyone who wants them, and our prohibition has cost us being able to effectively deal with the reckless uses of drugs because people are hiding all uses of drugs. That you're trying to argue against the facts - prohibition is a failed policy that makes drug use more dangerous than treating it as a social health issue - seems awfully reminiscent of people who don't like gays inventing reasons they're dangerous. Edit: I made a several off-topic replies in my posts, including this one, to the person above me. For a more complete discussion of it, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8218789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8218789
- bronbron 12y ago
  I'm not really talking about kids getting addicted. Not sure why you thought I was. I think we've done a pretty good job of regulating legal substances for minors. > And being gay should be discouraged because it spreads AIDS. Wow! That's incredibly homophobic. Unprotected sex spreads AIDS. Being gay has nothing to do with it. If you didn't get the memo, in the 21st century we don't fear 'the gays spreading evil diseases' anymore. > That you're trying to argue against the facts - prohibition is a failed policy that makes drug use more dangerous than treating it as a social health issue - I wasn't arguing for prohibition. Where did I argue for prohibition? Did I say the word 'prohibition' anywhere? In fact, you touched on exactly my point: > The simple fact is that drug use doesn't require any risks to the public that we don't allow already for other substances, We very greatly vary in our regulation of those substances. And of everything, for that matter. Alcohol's sold in corner stores, Percocet is only (legally) available through a pharmacy with a prescription. Owning a concealed firearm requires a permit. If we're going to legalize 'harder' drugs, where should they fall on that spectrum? Should we allow people to buy heroin at the corner store? Maybe! Should advertisers be allowed to buy huge billboards advertising their brand of crack? Possibly. We should evaluate what's going to provide the most overall utility for us as a society. If the answer is to legalize cocaine but disallow advertising of it, then that's what we should do. We don't know where that maximum utility is though, because it's taboo to talk about. People immediately see the word 'drugs' and froth at the mouth and go off on tangents either about personal choice and cartels or conversely they go off about 'think of the children!'. > seems awfully reminiscent of people who don't like gays inventing reasons they're dangerous. Actually, you're the one who did that in this conversation :).
  - aurelian 12y ago
    You misunderstood the poster above re: gays.
    - bronbron 12y ago
      No, I understood their point. It was a dumb hyperbolic analogy and it received a dumb loaded argument in retort.
JonnieCache 12y ago
In the words of doug stanhope, the drugs sell themselves.

ObviousScience 12y ago

Do you think those advertisers will be more effective than the current generation of street pushers that try to get your high school kids addicted? As a high school kid (a decade ago), it was FAR easier to get marijuana, opiate pills, shrooms, and other drugs than it was to get alcohol, because alcohol required that we go through someone we knew personally not invested in the criminal market for their income, and was vaguely watched by the government (since they could regulate the caution the stores took). > There's a plethora of disallowed personal choices that the vast majority of people would agree are net positives for society, if only because "doesn't harm anyone else" is a very gray area. And being gay should be discouraged because it spreads AIDS. The simple fact is that drug use doesn't require any risks to the public that we don't allow already for other substances, drugs are already being used by almost everyone who wants them, and our prohibition has cost us being able to effectively deal with the reckless uses of drugs because people are hiding all uses of drugs. That you're trying to argue against the facts - prohibition is a failed policy that makes drug use more dangerous than treating it as a social health issue - seems awfully reminiscent of people who don't like gays inventing reasons they're dangerous. Edit: I made a several off-topic replies in my posts, including this one, to the person above me. For a more complete discussion of it, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8218789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8218789

bronbron 12y ago
I'm not really talking about kids getting addicted. Not sure why you thought I was. I think we've done a pretty good job of regulating legal substances for minors. > And being gay should be discouraged because it spreads AIDS. Wow! That's incredibly homophobic. Unprotected sex spreads AIDS. Being gay has nothing to do with it. If you didn't get the memo, in the 21st century we don't fear 'the gays spreading evil diseases' anymore. > That you're trying to argue against the facts - prohibition is a failed policy that makes drug use more dangerous than treating it as a social health issue - I wasn't arguing for prohibition. Where did I argue for prohibition? Did I say the word 'prohibition' anywhere? In fact, you touched on exactly my point: > The simple fact is that drug use doesn't require any risks to the public that we don't allow already for other substances, We very greatly vary in our regulation of those substances. And of everything, for that matter. Alcohol's sold in corner stores, Percocet is only (legally) available through a pharmacy with a prescription. Owning a concealed firearm requires a permit. If we're going to legalize 'harder' drugs, where should they fall on that spectrum? Should we allow people to buy heroin at the corner store? Maybe! Should advertisers be allowed to buy huge billboards advertising their brand of crack? Possibly. We should evaluate what's going to provide the most overall utility for us as a society. If the answer is to legalize cocaine but disallow advertising of it, then that's what we should do. We don't know where that maximum utility is though, because it's taboo to talk about. People immediately see the word 'drugs' and froth at the mouth and go off on tangents either about personal choice and cartels or conversely they go off about 'think of the children!'. > seems awfully reminiscent of people who don't like gays inventing reasons they're dangerous. Actually, you're the one who did that in this conversation :).
- aurelian 12y ago
  You misunderstood the poster above re: gays.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    No, I understood their point. It was a dumb hyperbolic analogy and it received a dumb loaded argument in retort.

JonnieCache 12y ago

In the words of doug stanhope, the drugs sell themselves.