[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