5 ms·

I don't smoke or drink, but I believe in complete legalisation. Individuals, as long as they're not hurting anyone, should decide what to do with their own bodi

I don't smoke or drink, but I believe in complete legalisation. Individuals, as long as they're not hurting anyone, should decide what to do with their own bodies. The war on drugs has caused more harm than the drugs would have themselves. Countless lives lost and trillions of dollars wasted. For what? More people than ever use the substances. The 'war' has kept the cartels in business, inflated their prices and degraded the quality of the product. The war on drugs hasn't progressed anything, only destroyed.

rayiner 11y ago
> I don't smoke or drink, but I believe in complete legalisation. Individuals, as long as they're not hurting anyone, should decide what to do with their own bodies. I'm curious: do you believe in a social safety net? Do you believe society has an obligation to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met? If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the idea that individuals have no reciprocal obligation to society to abstain from using products that are harmful, and which cause addictions that hurt not only the individual users, but their families and loved ones?
- adrusi 11y ago
  If some one ends up abusing drugs to the extent that they have to rely on the social safety net, let them. No one wants to be poor, no one wants to live in the conditions imposed by the safety net. As long as the existence of a safety net doesn't encourage people to use drugs (people who start using drugs like opiates are rarely thinking of the future at the time they start) then the two aren't really related issues.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm not talking about people who abuse drugs badly enough to need the social safety net. Rather, I'm positing that the social safety net arises out of society's obligation to take care of individuals, and that individuals have a reciprocal obligation to society. To me, that reciprocal obligation is inconsistent with the premise that "should decide what to do with their own bodies." If drug use compromises your ability to be a productive member of society that can support and take care of family and neighbors, then it implicates your social obligation, and society has a right to tell you that you can't do it. Of course, the fact that society has a right to make drugs illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
- hobs 11y ago
  You didn't ask me, but I dont believe society has an obligation, I think it should do it because at a basic level, the outcomes are better for society as a whole. I think individuals absolutely have an obligation to society (different, but similar to a family obligation), and just like if you have a family member who is off their rocker, the outcomes are generally better for everyone if we take care of the problem early and try and fix the root cause so they can get healthy again. I sort of think of it as a bad analogy for the iterated snowdrift[0] where we can simply sit there and complain that the other person isn't doing their part, or we can continue to shovel and get the benefit ourselves. Best case we can induce them to help us with the shoveling, worst case the snow is cleared. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Iterated_snowdrift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Iterated_...
- amyjess 11y ago
  This is exactly why I'm morally opposed to socialized medicine.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  That's easy. Less harm comes from addiction than from the Drug War. Narcs are much worse, functionally, budgetarily, etc., than addicts. So if YOU believe in a social safety net, we ought to be punishing the Drug Warriors first.

rayiner 11y ago

> I don't smoke or drink, but I believe in complete legalisation. Individuals, as long as they're not hurting anyone, should decide what to do with their own bodies. I'm curious: do you believe in a social safety net? Do you believe society has an obligation to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met? If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the idea that individuals have no reciprocal obligation to society to abstain from using products that are harmful, and which cause addictions that hurt not only the individual users, but their families and loved ones?

adrusi 11y ago
If some one ends up abusing drugs to the extent that they have to rely on the social safety net, let them. No one wants to be poor, no one wants to live in the conditions imposed by the safety net. As long as the existence of a safety net doesn't encourage people to use drugs (people who start using drugs like opiates are rarely thinking of the future at the time they start) then the two aren't really related issues.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I'm not talking about people who abuse drugs badly enough to need the social safety net. Rather, I'm positing that the social safety net arises out of society's obligation to take care of individuals, and that individuals have a reciprocal obligation to society. To me, that reciprocal obligation is inconsistent with the premise that "should decide what to do with their own bodies." If drug use compromises your ability to be a productive member of society that can support and take care of family and neighbors, then it implicates your social obligation, and society has a right to tell you that you can't do it. Of course, the fact that society has a right to make drugs illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
hobs 11y ago
You didn't ask me, but I dont believe society has an obligation, I think it should do it because at a basic level, the outcomes are better for society as a whole. I think individuals absolutely have an obligation to society (different, but similar to a family obligation), and just like if you have a family member who is off their rocker, the outcomes are generally better for everyone if we take care of the problem early and try and fix the root cause so they can get healthy again. I sort of think of it as a bad analogy for the iterated snowdrift[0] where we can simply sit there and complain that the other person isn't doing their part, or we can continue to shovel and get the benefit ourselves. Best case we can induce them to help us with the shoveling, worst case the snow is cleared. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Iterated_snowdrift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Iterated_...
amyjess 11y ago
This is exactly why I'm morally opposed to socialized medicine.
Zigurd 11y ago
That's easy. Less harm comes from addiction than from the Drug War. Narcs are much worse, functionally, budgetarily, etc., than addicts. So if YOU believe in a social safety net, we ought to be punishing the Drug Warriors first.