[qbit]

It's interesting that whenever the subject of legalizing drugs comes up, people rarely argue for legalization from the perspective of cognitive liberty. Why we allow certain people to decide what states of consciousness are allowed for other people never ceases to amaze me.

[mythrwy]

Because in the real, non-theoretical bullshit world there are many undesirable social effect. For instance, dependence, irrational behavior, broken homes and death. Which necessarily involve other people and society as a whole. That's why. Sorry to be curt, but the idea an individual is independent of society approaches orthodox communism in lack of practical workability.

However I would argue that the current approach also breaks up homes, kills people and is generally irrational so that doesn't seem the way to go either.

Gore Vidal I think has the ultimate answer to the drug problem. Invent better drugs. Mitigate the harm. People will leave off the dangerous trash if there are better (and cheaper) alternatives.

[mobiletelephone]

Interestingly, the war on drugs has pushed people away from better and cheaper alternatives.

[chroem-]

I'm a huge fan of Washington State's ban on public smoking, and I wish they would ban tobacco outright.

Why then should I support proliferation of even more addictive and harmful substances? Tobacco smoke is bad enough, but used hypodermic needles laying on the ground is another issue entirely. The trouble with addictive drugs is that a person's free agency is overruled by dependancy on the substance: addicts want to quit but can't. We keep other far less harmful products off the market through regulation, and I don't see how this is any different.

[cortesoft]

Did you read the article? The percentage of people who become addicts after using drugs is actually quite low, even for the 'big four' most addictive drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, and crack)... so it is NOT true that everyone's free agency is overruled by addiction. In fact, a significant majority do not lose free agency; should they all be restricted because some people can't handle it?

The harmful products we should regulate are ones whose use harms other people; things like pesticides, pollutants, etc. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Lots of people think playing video games or watching tv 'rots your brain.' Some people eat way too much unhealthy food. Should we ban tvs and Doritos?

[Kurtz79]

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." "

I think there are enough reported cases of drug addicts resorting to crime and assault to get their fix (and it's not clear how legalizing drugs will change that, since addicts will still have to pay for their dose), not many of people would do the same to get their fix of videogames or doritos, not all addictions have the same strength and side effects.

I'm for decriminalization (still an offense, but not punishable with jail) and investing in treatment more than policing, but I don't think legalization would be beneficial.

[emiliobumachar]

"and it's not clear how legalizing drugs will change that, since addicts will still have to pay for their dose"

How about panhandling for an hour a week?

The street price of illegal drugs is all about compensating everyone in the production and distribution chain for the risk of being arrested or killed.

Legal drugs can be as cheap as we want them to be, weighting risk of violence against barrier for starting users and tax revenue.

The price floor (without subsidies) is dimes per dose. How much does refined sugar cost? Three bucks per kilo? Four?

[warsharks]

this exactly, in my younger years i developed quite the interest in psychoactive substances and went out of my way to try a very large variety of them, far more than your average person could name (134 different substances to be accurate) yet i have never been addicted to anything, i have no criminal record and have never suffered any ill health due to my usage.

if taking drugs was guaranteed to cause problems id certainly have been subject to them and while i am no longer actively searching these things out or experimenting i will dabble from time to time, yet im still a "functioning member of society"

[chillingeffect]

Exactly! Many people have done this as a hobby/personal research project. Alexander shulgin experimented with possibly thousands of substances and had no cognitive impairment.

[lopatin]

It's tough. I think most ppl will agree that wine is great. Weed is great. But both in moderation. And that Heroin is evil. Not even once. Those are the two sides of the spectrum with a crazy amount of gray area and fear in the middle. We're fiddling with that line of what's acceptable for the masses. Now that the war on drugs is widely seen as a ... miscalculation. We're maturing, it's becoming less taboo to speak up and address the issue of mind alteration. It's a debate that can only happen in the context of the experience we've gained by drug use as illicit substances. How could we possibly speak with conviction about the topic without seeing first hand how certain drugs affect society? It would all be hand waving and speculation and would end in the loudest voice winning. We're getting there, starting to come to terms with the hypocrisy of alcohol, but the social progress is understandably super slow.

[wfunction]

> In fact, a significant majority do not lose free agency; should they all be restricted because some people can't handle it?

What's the difference between this argument and "why should I have to pay for the insurance of others who get sick? should we all have to pay because a few can't live a healthy life?"?

[dunmalg]

>What's the difference between this argument and "why should I have to pay for the insurance of others who get sick? should we all have to pay because a few can't live a healthy life?"?

Accepting universal drug prohibition is not anything like accepting mandatory insurance. Mandatory insurance results in nearly everyone being covered by insurance. Conversely, universal prohibition doesn't result in people NOT using drugs, it simply results in drugs being expensive and unregulated. Over a century of of strict prohibition has demonstrated this extensively.

[warsharks]

living a healthy life does not guarantee you a life free of health problems. but fair enough if they must restrict it have a licence system whereby people apply for the substances they wish to use and have to pass a test that confirms their basic understanding of the chemicals, if properly educated the vast majority of people would be responsible just as they are when driving a car

[ProxCoques]

"Why then should I support proliferation of even more addictive and harmful substances?"

Because keeping them illegal does far, far more harm than you probably realise.

Go to Mexico or Afghanistan to see the most obvious effects of the illegal cultivation of raw materials. But also go to any poor neighbourhood in most Western cities to see what illegality does there. The corruption of law and politics, the denial of human rights and the distorting effect of too much money in the wrong places.

It's been estimated that the world narcotics industry is financially about the same size as the oil industry. If alcohol was invented today its use would immediately be criminalised. But it's not because, as the US found with Prohibition, doing so once the demand is there causes the near breakdown of social democracy. When you land at Kula Lumpur airport, the cabin attendant welcomes you to Malaysia and reminds you politely that trafficking in drugs carries a mandatory sentence of death. And as you walk to reclaim your baggage, there are posters of nooses with the words "dadah" beneath them.

That, if nothing else, should clue you that after 50 years of prohibition the situation is utterly out of control.

[noahth]

Nobody shoots up on the sidewalk because it's the best place for that experience; they do it because they don't have a better place to go. The problem isn't the drugs, it's the system that puts addicts on the street, and the legal system is part of that.

[md224]

Amen. To add to this: one of the (many) reasons people end up on heroin is because they lose access to pharmaceutical painkillers. It might sound strange, but our restrictive drug policies are actually making the heroin epidemic worse. We need a better approach.

[pravda]

Well, tobacco use generally affects just the user. Alcohol is the real killer.

Alcohol users drive into school buses and kill innocent children.

Now that we have our first president who doesn't use alcohol, it's time we crack down on the alcohol users. For the children.

[purple-again]

Sorry about the downvotes man. This was a perfect witty post that I guess needed a /s for some people.

[jknoepfler]

I tend to downvote sarcastic posts on hacker news because they are sarcastic in nature, not because I disagree with their content per se. I'd encourage you to consider the idea that people downvoted this post despite understanding it, and perhaps even agreeing with the underlying sentiment. Otherwise intelligent people thought it was inappropriate in this forum.

Sarcasm is generally perceived to be a lazy and ineffective way to make an argument, because it is imprecise, tends to strawman the opposing viewpoint, and lacks precise positive claims. The belief is that if the poster actually had something to add to the conversation, they should state it clearly and precisely, rather than relying on subtext and sarcasm.

As a general rule, I think this is correct. If one can't phrase a sarcastic retort as a concrete rebuttal, one's views are likely less clear than one would like. There generally isn't any interesting reason to prefer a sarcastic variation on a response to a straight-forward one, especially in a forum where non-native language speakers, as well as individuals who do not register sarcasm, are frequent visitors.

This forum caters to a distinctly older and more highly educated demographic than reddit (or whatever), and participants are held to norms that might at first seem strange or alien.

[DanBC]

> but used hypodermic needles laying on the ground is another issue entirely

The criminal justice response to this has clearly failed. How about treating this as the public health problem it is? Give addicts access to clean needles, safe injecting spaces, and needle disposal and you'll get rid of most of the problems of irresponsibly dangerously disposed of needles.

[gurkendoktor]

Smokers already have all that and still can't be arsed not to litter public spaces/nature with cigarette butts.

[Freak_NL]

It takes time to move from a society where smoking was the norm to one where smoking is a private vice enjoyed by few. The general trend is towards smoke-free public spaces, but no matter how you approach the problem, some smokers will feel ostracised and act mulish and defensive, while some people are simply incorrigible. But demographically taken, they are a dying breed, and will (if the current trend in many modern countries continues) simply vanish in a generation or two.

Personally, the amount of cigarette buts littered seems to have decreased in the past decades, simply because fewer people smoke, and those who do smoke often use designated smoking areas.

It takes time, and with drugs it will take time as well.

[noahdesu]

I'm really conditioned to come at the legalization issue from other angles, but the cognitive liberty argument is quite nice. The talk here [0] provides a good introduction to the topic, but fair warning, there is a lot of passionate politics discussed (e.g. the state of jefferson etc...).

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDPL8_4W-8Q&t=1012s

[3131s]

The cognitive and personal liberty argument is all that should be required. It's my body and my mind, and I won't let another person exert that control over me. The negative externalities of drug use are mostly caused by prohibition itself and are minor compared to a whole host of things that are considered normal and vital to society (alcohol, junk food, driving a car, consumerism, etc.). Being branded a criminal will not exactly be the helpful push you need toward quitting drugs anyway.

Some other good arguments are...

* harm reduction through unadulterated and consistent drugs, clean needles, less stigmatization of addicts

* elimination of the black market around illegal drugs

* money from taxation

* reduction of the prison population and financial savings in the legal system / government / police

* the opportunity for research into both the medicinal effects of drugs like marijuana, mdma, psilocybin, and potential treatments based on greater scientific insight into the addictive properties of recreational drugs.

* that prohibition actually pushes people toward more dangerous drugs (heroin --> fentanyl, LSD / mushrooms --> 25i-NBOMe, marijuana --> K2)

* that the drug war is simply not working, so even if drug use has some inherent detriment to society, there's no realistic way to make that disappear.

[ansible]

I don't think the cost savings angle gets mentioned enough.

If you put people in jail for using drugs, everyone else is paying for that through taxation.

If they are working, then they are paying taxes. Even in areas with chronic unemployment (and we need to have a while 'nother conversation about economic inequality), a good percentage might still be working if not in jail.

So that is a double whammy to the tax payers who are paying for the War on Drugs.

[wildmusings]

I imagine it comes across as pie-in-the-sky thinking to many people who have seen what addiction does to people. Addicts will even take drugs that they know will kill them in the span of a few months (see the krokodil epidemic in Russia).

[lawpoop]

Which it turns comes across as ignorant, to people aware of how successfully Portugal handled their heroin addiction crisis, through decriminalization.

[wildmusings]

Now you're talking about an argument from efficacy, not liberty. My point is that the argument from liberty isn't going to get a good hearing when drug addiction is such a major societal problem. No one cares about your right to get high when drugs are destroying people's lives and entire communities. Drug policy will be judged mostly on its efficacy in preventing and ending addiction and wanton self-destruction.

[lawpoop]

I would rather say that it's argument from evidence, but that's perhaps an academic point.

But I disagree that drug policy is judged on the merits you mention; we have evidence of decriminalization in portugal, and its relative success in preventing destruction. Meanwhile elsewhere in the world there is very little appetite to entertain the idea of decriminalization or legalization, despite evidence supporting the theory that prohibition exacerbates the effects its intended to directly prevent.

[joshontheweb]

So you would rob others of their liberty over self to preserve your own sense of righteousness?

[Banthum]

No, to maximize their chance of a happy, productive life, and maximize the chances of those around them, and maximize the health and strength and long-term viability of our society as a whole.

Humans are not well-adapted to the temptations, challenges, and weird outcomes of modern life. Many people - probably most people - need to have their world and their choices shaped by social policy and group morality. Left with total freedom and no guidance, they would destroy themselves because they couldn't understand or handle the perverse, distant, brutal, unpredictable outcomes of their decisions.

We're just not evolved to thrive in a world with World of Warcraft, heroin, credit cards, sugary drinks, alcohol, motor vehicles, birth control, mass media, porn, reality TV, glamour magazines, Photoshopped models, etc.

The more our world diverges from the conditions of our ancient ancestors, the more it needs to be shaped. And as a very individualistic freedom-loving person, I hate saying this but it's true.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Left with total freedom and no guidance, they would destroy themselves"

The state should provide a certain base level safety net, especially so those who realised they messed up have a way to turn things around, but society should allow people to learn from their mistakes. It's important to give people that freedom to grow, even if it takes some self-destructive behaviour before someone wants to turn their life around. Actions that affect multiple people should be handled differently, but if all I'm doing is making myself unhealthy then perhaps I just have different priorities. In short, freedom should include the freedom to mess up.

[Banthum]

Even if all you're doing is making yourself unhealthy, you're still harming others by destroying your own ability to contribute what you should be contributing.

Simple non-aggression isn't good enough. We all depend on others contributing to society. The standard cannot be that you simply must not actively cause harm. The standard must be that we each contribute positively.

None of us ever reached adulthood except by the contributions of others - parents, social services, earlier taxpayers, soldiers, etc. You owe those contributions back to the next generation, and to the people who share society with you.

If you're strung out or dead from foolish drug use, you cannot contribute. You cannot pay that back, and you are a wrongdoer for taking without reciprocating.

Any other attitude will create a non-viable society over the long term, and spread great suffering.

[ZenoArrow]

You can't force people to be happy, productive members of society. Imposing that on someone leads to bitterness and resentment. Furthermore, it's boring. If we all define ourselves as being productive workers, can't you see something more important would be lost?

[arcticbull]

Without the freedom to try (the same thing as the freedom to fail) society may never move to a better balance point. We can't know what we don't know until we try. Catch people when they fall but certainly don't try and stop them from making an attempt in the first place.

[jstanley]

You're not superior to anyone else.

Grown adults can make their own decisions and suffer the consequences.

Acting like you have a right to tell other people what they can and can't do is incredibly egotistical.

[wildmusings]

>Grown adults can make their own decisions and suffer the consequences.

Not in any western country. People are heavily insulated from the consequences of their actions by the welfare state. We even subsidize their ability to bring children into the world and (most likely) raise them poorly.

[Sleeep]

No, what is egotistical is believing your individual choices don't affect others and believing that the consequences your actions are not externalized by society.

I'm not even pro criminalization, but, c'mon man.

[Banthum]

If other peoples' actions affect me, I absolutely have the right to influence those actions.

[hehheh]

That's pretty much the only argument I ever see, other than the standard one for cannabis (it's just a plant).

[qbit]

It seems to me the standard argument for legalizing cannabis is tax revenue. It reminds me of when Kansas was considering abolishing capital pinishment. It wasn't due to any ethical or moral reasoning, but because of the economics of housing death row inmates.

[embwbam]

It's not that these are the best reasons to change the law. It's that these are the reasons everyone can agree on

[dontreact]

What's the standard response of this argument to the problem of addiction? Why should we allow large corporations to market drugs which are so addictive that on balance we expect legalizing them to take people's cognitive liberty? What about children who are easier to deceive and more likely to get addicted?

[Inconel]

As someone who's pretty firmly in the legalization/decriminalization camp, and as someone who doesn't partake in drug use, I rarely even consume alcohol or caffeine despite quite enjoying the taste, I don't really have a terribly persuasive response to your concerns. All of the things you highlight are deeply troubling and concerning to me as well, however, it seems fairly apparent that our current methods of dealing with drug use and addiction are so appallingly unsuccessful, and have been so costly, both in lives and expenditures, that legalization or at least complete decriminalization seem like a better alternative at this point. And this doesn't even take into account any views I may have on the personal liberty perspective.

[DanBC]

Addiction is a public health, not criminal justice, problem. Many of the problems of drugs - acquisitive crime, sex work, blood borne disease transmission - are made far worse by the illegality.

People wanting to legalise drugs are not saying "it's fine to sell heroin to 8 year olds".

Legalisation of drugs would make it easier to control sales to children.

[arcticbull]

I think the answer is the same as with alcohol and cigarettes, which have all these same problems.

(1) Should we allow corporations to market addictive drugs? No, we shouldn't -- not blanket anyways. Same as tobacco. You don't get to advertise. The product sells it self you don't get to help out.

(2) Children: You don't get to advertise to children. You don't get to sell near schools. You don't get to sell to anyone under 18 (or probably 21 for some reason in the US).

(3) If that's not enough, require a license from a physician who gives you a walkthrough on the risks, how to do drugs safely and what to do if you have trouble or think you're getting addicted.

(4) Mandatory addiction counseling, as in Portugal.

Realistically, though, I would be very surprised if selling drugs legally lead to a huge spike in usage. Anyone who wants heroin now can just get it, thing is, most people don't want heroin. Legalizing that won't change that in my opinion.

Legalizing doesn't mean requiring people to take them, or even market them, or even shine a positive light on them. It means not taking people with a medical problem and throwing them into prison where they have access to even more drugs.

[labster]

This post sounds suspiciously like promoting thoughtcrime and has been sent to MiniLuv for processing.