3 ms·

Why is quitting drugs an implicitly desirable goal? "...or does it transform them into more docile drug addicts, wards of an indulgent state..." My point is t

Why is quitting drugs an implicitly desirable goal? "...or does it transform them into more docile drug addicts, wards of an indulgent state..." My point is that this question is nearly pointless to ask. If someone lives their whole life addicted to drugs and leads a productive full life, what does it matter, other than the bad taste that seems to leave in some peoples' mouths.

Kalium 12y ago
Asking the question is significant because it bears directly on the question of resources, which tend to be finite. If legalization has the effect of dramatically reducing addiction rates, then its costs can be expected to drop over time as lives are improved and addiction rates drop. If the latter scenario is the case and addicts are becoming wards of the state, then costs cannot be expected to decrease over time, and addiction rates will not drop. How might other lives be improved with those resources? In either case, it's important to know what effect the programs have actually had. Without that, it's impossible to assess programs. A program you cannot assess is one you cannot improve or learn from. It also matters because costs must be balanced against benefits in making decisions. Thus is the bloody calculus of government.
- DubiousPusher 12y ago
  Then it comes to this, it depends upon why you are posing the question. If you are a researcher and it's important to you to isolate factors that can decrease addiction in the name of science then that is one things. But my feeling is this question is usually asked because it can be used to poison the well of this kind of policy. Asking this question in this context seems to me not an exercise in good science but an attempt to score a point for opposition based on people's generally icky feelings about addiction.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    The questions need answers, regardless of the reasons behind them. It's not a good idea to attempt to cut off answers because you suspect the person seeking them may be impure. I don't care if the questions come from the purest of motives or someone's generally icky feelings. I want answers, and provided they're accurate, then I can make up my own mind. I do not accept this ideological filtering.
    - DubiousPusher 12y ago
      My point isn't that we should "filter" the question. It's that the author, by posing this ideologically loaded question and addressing it in no quantitative way nor addressing why it is a question of import regarding this policy is either being naive or intellectually dishonest. If I'm writing a piece about the merits of almonds upon your diet and my findings are that almonds are good for you in every way but at the outset of my article pose the question, can we really continue to consume a substance from which deadly cyanide can be derived? Then my intent is clearly a rhetorical flourish to lend a false counterpoint to my narrative. The science establishing almonds as safe to eat is so overwhelming that raising this false doubt, even temporarily in the minds of my readers is irresponsible. If you genuinely wish to know the objective factors that contribute to addiction, I'm all for it. Shit, I'll pay taxes to help you get that information because I agree it's important. But if you wish to use worn out cliches in order to make your writing seem more even handed and thus bolster the arguments of those not interested in objective knowledge but interested in advancing their own morals via public policy then I will call you out.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Given that the New Yorker is often a political publication, I thought that the context of why the question is posed was obvious and not in need of being explicitly explained. By raising the possibility that the reflexively conservative might be correct, a compelling case is made to all that research is in order.

Kalium 12y ago

Asking the question is significant because it bears directly on the question of resources, which tend to be finite. If legalization has the effect of dramatically reducing addiction rates, then its costs can be expected to drop over time as lives are improved and addiction rates drop. If the latter scenario is the case and addicts are becoming wards of the state, then costs cannot be expected to decrease over time, and addiction rates will not drop. How might other lives be improved with those resources? In either case, it's important to know what effect the programs have actually had. Without that, it's impossible to assess programs. A program you cannot assess is one you cannot improve or learn from. It also matters because costs must be balanced against benefits in making decisions. Thus is the bloody calculus of government.

DubiousPusher 12y ago
Then it comes to this, it depends upon why you are posing the question. If you are a researcher and it's important to you to isolate factors that can decrease addiction in the name of science then that is one things. But my feeling is this question is usually asked because it can be used to poison the well of this kind of policy. Asking this question in this context seems to me not an exercise in good science but an attempt to score a point for opposition based on people's generally icky feelings about addiction.
- Kalium 12y ago
  The questions need answers, regardless of the reasons behind them. It's not a good idea to attempt to cut off answers because you suspect the person seeking them may be impure. I don't care if the questions come from the purest of motives or someone's generally icky feelings. I want answers, and provided they're accurate, then I can make up my own mind. I do not accept this ideological filtering.
  - DubiousPusher 12y ago
    My point isn't that we should "filter" the question. It's that the author, by posing this ideologically loaded question and addressing it in no quantitative way nor addressing why it is a question of import regarding this policy is either being naive or intellectually dishonest. If I'm writing a piece about the merits of almonds upon your diet and my findings are that almonds are good for you in every way but at the outset of my article pose the question, can we really continue to consume a substance from which deadly cyanide can be derived? Then my intent is clearly a rhetorical flourish to lend a false counterpoint to my narrative. The science establishing almonds as safe to eat is so overwhelming that raising this false doubt, even temporarily in the minds of my readers is irresponsible. If you genuinely wish to know the objective factors that contribute to addiction, I'm all for it. Shit, I'll pay taxes to help you get that information because I agree it's important. But if you wish to use worn out cliches in order to make your writing seem more even handed and thus bolster the arguments of those not interested in objective knowledge but interested in advancing their own morals via public policy then I will call you out.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Given that the New Yorker is often a political publication, I thought that the context of why the question is posed was obvious and not in need of being explicitly explained. By raising the possibility that the reflexively conservative might be correct, a compelling case is made to all that research is in order.