[steiger]

>>>> Why is nearly every culture against it

>> Sobriety and self-control are essential to a functioning society and especially a liberal democracy. Freedom, to the extent we have it, requires that we can govern ourselves.

Yes, but we tolerate alcohol. We tolerate getting high - but we are selective about which drugs you can get high on. If we tolerate alcohol, so why don't we tolerate cannabis, psychedelics and other "soft drugs"? It's because of misinformation, fear, taboo and stigma.

>>>> People are always going to take drugs, and by and large, they are harmless

>> This is an argument that has never made much sense to me. People are always going to commit every crime. Laws exist because people will break them. And laws are effective deterents if the penalties are appropriately harsh. Consider that alcohol consumption took almost a generation to return to its pre-prohibition levels (around the 60's-70s').

But if you criminalise behavior that does not really harm anyone else but yourself (at most), you're inventing a victimless crime. Victimless crimes do nothing to help society - in fact, it degrades society, marginalizes and criminalizes otherwise respectable citizens, and in case of drug prohibition, guarantees that drug money goes to black market, which in turn potentially increase violent, real crime.

[jlos]

What particular drugs should stigmatized is another discussion and there are no doubt many inconsistencies in our legal system. However, that some drugs should be stigmatized is reasonable and what I was suggesting.

>> but if you criminalise behavior that does not really harm anyone else but yourself (at most), you're inventing a victimless crime

This is where I would push back a bit and say that line of reasoning is too individualistic. Again, I'm not drawing lines between substances (that is another discussion) but I suggest that substances which significantly diminish your reasoning capacities and self-control do harm society. The entire project of democracy requires self-governing citizens. It only makes sense that if we want to have the freedom to live as we see fit we must be able to control ourselves. If a drug causes a person loose their reasoning capacities and self-control, as many do, they do damage society. Individuals who take such drugs are not respectable citizens because they are forfeiting a primary civic duty of self-control.

Again, because I'm staking out a narrow piece of ground here, I am not saying at this point which drugs ought to fall into the criminal category. Nor am I denying there are inconsistencies and perverse incentives in our existing system. I'm simply arguing that its reasonable for some drugs to be outlawed.

[pharrington]

Capacity for reasoning and self-control vary highly from context-to-context while completely sober. The cognitive affects of psychoactives lay on a humongous spectrum and vary in context of their use. Research these topics before you form strong opinions about them.

Also no one reasonable is recommending to drop acid right before going to the voting booth.

[Zak]

If a drug causes a person loose their reasoning capacities and self-control, as many do, they do damage society.

The effects of most drugs are fairly short-lived. I can drink whiskey until I'm incoherent tonight and be perfectly lucid and productive tomorrow. Maybe there's something more pro-social I could do than get drunk and there's an opportunity cost argument to be made, but there are a great many other socially neutral things I could do, like play video games.

It's not good for a society if too many people are too disengaged, incoherent or intoxicated to participate constructively, but I'm not convinced that prohibiting access to drugs is an effective means of causing people to participate constructively. I think it's more likely people who would withdraw from reality by taking drugs will withdraw by some other means if the only change made is to deny access to the drugs.

In short, I think the focus must be on the carrot, not the stick.

[pstuart]

If you're so concerned about critical reasoning in society, then the focus should be on outlawing religion first.

[ck425]

>> the freedom to live as we see fit we must be able to control ourselves

Who defines control and how do you do so without inevitably reducing the freedom said control exists to preserve?

If you want people to engage is their societies and being good citizens you don't do so by banning the alternatives. By and large we're programmed so that if given the opportunities to successfully engage and contribute we do.