[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?

[Banthum]

You can't force people to be happy, but you can strongly encourage them to contribute to the welfare of others, thus sustaining the conditions that give everyone a chance at happiness.

[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.