> you saying there's no potential at which a drug should be illegal?
You can also buy a knife and stab yourself. You can choose to do harm to yourself in numerous different ways. Some of those ways include manipulating your own mind.
You can also engage in other self-destructive behaviors that won't directly kill you, but will likely ruin your life to some degree. For instance, spending sixteen hours a day on Internet forums to the exclusion of all else. Or eating 6000 calories a day. Or never exercising. Or spending money you don't have on things you don't need. Choosing to exercise willpower in several of those situations involves combating intentional psychological manipulation to convince you otherwise.
Your life could probably be better organized, more productive, longer, and possibly even more fun for you if someone else made your decisions for you. Want to let them? Do you think everyone should be forced to?
> , there's a point where socially we can absolutely say, "No, that thing is too dangerous to let you have without precautions."
"And if you don't agree with that, then we'll throw you in jail". Doesn't sound as good when you complete the thought, does it?
If you harm others, or even risk harm to others, then absolutely. For instance, other people didn't agree to sharing a road with someone with impaired senses and reaction times.
If you want to go teach a course on how to develop and exercise willpower, and how it's one of the single biggest controllable factors that helps determine your success in life, by all means do so. I'm not being sarcastic; that would genuinely be wildly useful and a major improvement to society.
> if addictive drugs were legal and fully unregulated, who do you think the majority of the profits would go to?
Anyone capable of growing or synthesizing them. They're generics by definition. (Not that businesses wouldn't come up with "designer" versions, too.)
Do you see major drug companies flocking to states that have legalized pot?
>> you saying there's no potential at which a drug should be illegal?
> You can also buy a knife and stab yourself. You can choose to do harm to yourself in numerous different ways. Some of those ways include manipulating your own mind. You can also engage in other self-destructive behaviors that won't directly kill you, but will likely ruin your life to some degree.
The difference if we're using metaphors is that knives aren't addictive in the same way that some drugs are. I have no problem with people altering their mind using whatever substance they choose -- if it's below a certain addictiveness threshold. With threshold arguable as to what point is socially dangerous enough to merit special treatment.
>> Imo, there's a point where socially we can absolutely say, "No, that thing is too dangerous to let you have without precautions."
> "And if you don't agree with that, then we'll throw you in jail". Doesn't sound as good when you complete the thought, does it?
Yes, it still sounds pretty good compared to the alternative. Obviously, I'd prefer not to use incarceration as a penalty, as I think we (the US) have shown that as currently practiced it's a terribly ineffective way to promote social good.
But generally? If you feel that there are certain things that should be agreed and enforced via laws (I do), then there are going to be consequences to breaking those laws. And those consequences are going to be unpleasant.
I don't like incarceration or support it as a policy, but banned addictive substances -> illegal suppliers. I don't know of a magic bullet to solve that without a threat. :\
>> if addictive drugs were legal and fully unregulated, who do you think the majority of the profits would go to?
> Anyone capable of growing or synthesizing them. They're generics by definition. (Not that businesses wouldn't come up with "designer" versions, too.)
> Do you see major drug companies flocking to states that have legalized pot?
Really? :p Just like freely-growable tobacco profits don't accumulate with large corporations?
And no, I don't see major drug companies flocking to states that have legalized a substance that is still criminalized at the national level.
You can also buy a knife and stab yourself. You can choose to do harm to yourself in numerous different ways. Some of those ways include manipulating your own mind.
You can also engage in other self-destructive behaviors that won't directly kill you, but will likely ruin your life to some degree. For instance, spending sixteen hours a day on Internet forums to the exclusion of all else. Or eating 6000 calories a day. Or never exercising. Or spending money you don't have on things you don't need. Choosing to exercise willpower in several of those situations involves combating intentional psychological manipulation to convince you otherwise.
Your life could probably be better organized, more productive, longer, and possibly even more fun for you if someone else made your decisions for you. Want to let them? Do you think everyone should be forced to?
> , there's a point where socially we can absolutely say, "No, that thing is too dangerous to let you have without precautions."
"And if you don't agree with that, then we'll throw you in jail". Doesn't sound as good when you complete the thought, does it?
If you harm others, or even risk harm to others, then absolutely. For instance, other people didn't agree to sharing a road with someone with impaired senses and reaction times.
If you want to go teach a course on how to develop and exercise willpower, and how it's one of the single biggest controllable factors that helps determine your success in life, by all means do so. I'm not being sarcastic; that would genuinely be wildly useful and a major improvement to society.
> if addictive drugs were legal and fully unregulated, who do you think the majority of the profits would go to?
Anyone capable of growing or synthesizing them. They're generics by definition. (Not that businesses wouldn't come up with "designer" versions, too.)
Do you see major drug companies flocking to states that have legalized pot?