[buu700]

I've thought the same thing and generally agree with it. Why shouldn't I be able to walk to CVS and pick up a bottle of heroin and various prescription drugs? I'm an adult; I shouldn't even owe anyone an explanation.

At the same time, I think we would need to concurrently ban drug advertisements as other countries have. To me, that seems like a better balance between treating individuals as adults with autonomy and minimizing harm on the macro scale.

[dalbasal]

IMO, it's a mistake to approach these kinds of questions from first principles perspective, at least exclusively. We have a history, and a lot of where we are is a response to past problems. That doesn't mean where we are is optimal, just that it's not simple.

Snake oil is a major problem, always has been. Drugs of abuse are a problem, like the oxi crisis. Antibiotic resistance. Etc. There are lots of reasons to have controls in place that don't have a first principles logic to them... just an empirical one.

[buu700]

Makes sense. There's definitely room for disagreement without either side being malicious. On one hand there are the problems we see in front of us today of a lot of people having their lives unfairly destroyed by the state and billions of dollars being arguably wasted; on the other hand, we have to consider the problems that led to our current situation, and ensure that any solution we implement today doesn't excessively regress in those areas.

I'm still pro-full-legalization for the moment, but wouldn't just sign a bill if presented to me today without first ensuring that my administration had a firm understanding of all the historical issues, and felt comfortable that the bill reasonably addressed them (or, if not, that the cure at least wasn't worse than the disease). I know there's a pop culture narrative that drug prohibition was primarily motivated by malicious suppression of anyone Nixon considered undesirables, but from what I understand the real history is much more complicated.

Perhaps simple decriminalization would be a better first step, if not ultimately a better long-term solution as well. And, oh hey, it looks like that may soon be on the table: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27522843

[xyzzy123]

The reason you can't go to CVS and pick up heroin or crack is:

Inevitably, lots of people would become addicted and there would be many deaths.

Very critical news stories would run. People neglecting their children to use drugs. Testimonies of loved ones and shattered families.

Politicians would be inundated with calls to regulate these dangerous substances.

Politicians who refused to do anything would be mired in conspiracy theories, accusations of conflict of interest and profiting from suffering. They would be voted out and replaced.

Regulation ensues.

[wolverine876]

> lots of people would become addicted and there would be many deaths

This is the reason. It doesn't require cynically blaming politicians. It's not wrong for politicians to act to prevent death, and to be responsive to their constituents. Those are good things.

[nickthemagicman]

Your entire post is pure speculation and fear mongering

All drugs are decriminalized in Portugal, Uruguay, etc. with less addiction and better addiction outcomes than the U.S.

They treat addiction like a disease like diabetes instead of a crime.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/...

[buu700]

I didn't get the sense that GP was necessarily agreeing with those positions, more illustrating the high-level political hurdles (right or wrong) that legalization fundamentally faces.

It's similar in my mind to self-driving cars. The first post-large-scale-rollout deaths will likely cause a political backlash, even if statisticians and scientists are able to show that the proposed regulatory response would cause more harm than good.

I don't agree that the successful implementation of such a regulatory response is a foregone conclusion in either case, but we will need to be prepared to deal with the reality of some people dying due to self-driving software issues and/or consumption of non-FDA-approved substances.

[nickthemagicman]

"Inevitably, lots of people would become addicted and there would be many deaths."

Outright wrong, baseless, and fear-mongering.