|
|
|
|
|
by dTal
1879 days ago
|
|
Devil's advocate - it is not necessarily the case that the social harm of a drug is matched by the personal harm. Arguably, the law has more business policing the social harm than the personal harm. Maybe it happens to be that alcohol - while poisonous - strengthens social bonds and is an overall net good, while cannabis - though relatively harmless - causes people to space out uselessly in front of the TV. Indeed, I believe this is a popular counterculture "conspiracy theory" - that the drugs that are illegal are the ones that cause the user to question the structure of society, in particular competitive capitalism. I'm not endorsing any of the above - just pointing out that there are other reasons one might want a drug to be illegal than mere medical danger. |
|
There are a lot of things that carry potential for social harm. It's the job of a nation's citizens to decide which are socially harmful enough to warrant fines or imprisonment. Ranged weapons certainly carry potential for social harm, but the US has decided they don't cross that threshold as long as they aren't fully automatic or explosive.
I think the social harm of even the most "notorious" drugs, like PCP and methamphetamine, don't cross that threshold, personally. There's a lot of pushback now, but I suspect within a century or so most or all drugs will be decriminalized in the US and many other places, even if mostly for practical rather than philosophical reasons.
Focusing solely on the personal harm arguments can be interesting to think about, too. Can a case be made for legalizing fentanyl, despite it often causing personal harm (death)? I think I lean towards legalizing both buying and selling of it as long as failure to disclosure it's contained in something is illegal; though in practice that might be too hard to enforce, in which case maybe selling should be illegal as long as there's some safe government-sanctioned source of it.