[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