Hacker News Reader

Comment by ythl | Hacker News Reader

In that case resisting any evil that people want is futile and we should just embrace it instead of fighting it. People want abortions? Rationalize and embrace. People want drugs? Rationalize and embrace. People want porn, gambling, prostitution, and more? Rationalize and embrace. Fighting those things "creates" more evil by criminalizing productive members of society and fostering black markets (according to you).

Why is there no middle ground? Why can't I be against abortion (which I consider recklessly irresponsible and evil in most cases), but still make an exception for cases of rape, mother endangerment, etc. Why can't I be against drug usage and availability, but still have compassion for people stuck in a rut? Why are the only sides you can pick so polarizing?

View on HN

>Why is there no middle ground?

It's odd that you view your position as "the middle group", when its seems very extreme.

The current situation is extreme - anyone who uses drugs gets whisked off to jail for 5-15 years, and then must combat their addiction after having lost so many years of their life. We did this for 20 years, and it clearly doesn't work.

The other extreme would simply be a complete 100% free open market for drugs, a world in which a supplier for recreational heroin could be a public company, - which no one in this thread is reasonably arguing for.

The middle ground is where we are trying to move to - less penalties on actual drug use, and more welfare for drug addicts to reduce to overall cost the "drug problem" has in society.

Lastly, its rather odd you view drugs as "evil". Why are drugs evil? Or do you mean people who use drugs, are they evil? Or do they become evil after having taken the drugs? To me, this is a dehumanizing view on fellow human beings. It's part of the psyche that lets us ignore their the deep rooted problems the drug war has cost us because we can all turn off our brains and just call them evil.

Speaking of middle grounds, exactly what do you mean by "fighting" these things that you call evil? "Fighting" them by having armed cops hunt down anybody remotely involved in them and throw them all in jail for decades doesn't sound like much of a middle ground to me. Even more so when it doesn't work and you try to double down with even harsher laws, like seizing private property without even bringing any charges.

How about we legalize, tax, and lightly regulate all of those things as appropriate, and if you think that they're evil and want to fight them, you can spend as much time and money as you want convincing people to voluntarily stop doing them?

> Fighting those things "creates" more evil by criminalizing productive members of society and fostering black markets (according to you).

Supply-side vs demand-side. Your approach is fighting these things by restricting the supply. I think the right approach is tacking the mental-health and poverty issues that are present with almost all of these behaviours instead and reduce demand.

The problem with restricting the supply of a vice is that the same people will just find another "high", another way to self-medicate, another outlet for their unhappiness. The root cause remains. Just look at shit like krokodil[1]. Even though it has extreme physical side-effects, a junkie will still use it if they're desperate enough. There are not enough cops in the world to enforce a ban on everything that can get you high. The collateral damage of trying is enormous.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine

Why should it matter what each of us are for and against? Make all the exceptions you like, in your own life. Clearly other people have other opinions. Public policy is more than forcing individual morals on the public.

You don't have to embrace anything in your private life. But stay the heck out of mine.

> You don't have to embrace anything in your private life. But stay the heck out of mine.

Yes, but unfortunately all individual choices eventually start bleeding into other peoples' lives, no matter how much you like to pretend they are encapsulated. Otherwise alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and more would only affect their users, but as we know they create collateral damage and rippling effects into their respective communities all the time. Your "private life" booze problem could kill my whole family in a DUI.

What if I told you your choice to support "The War on Drugs" has caused rising violence in poor neighbourhoods, contributed to millions of people being stuck in a cycle of poverty, and helped erode the basic constitutional rights of an entire nation.

Oh, sorry, you were talking about collateral damage caused by people you don't like! My bad.

> What if I told you your choice to support "The War on Drugs" has caused ...

I don't necessarily support the current implementation of it. But I am against recreational drug usage and widespread drug availability (i.e. go to CVS and by meth and heroin, if you want).

I think that cigarettes and alcohol, already legal substances that ravage the poor, have caused and continue to cause immeasurable damage to life and property. Yet we do little to address those problems. Once drugs are legal, you'll find something else to blame poverty on ("the government isn't giving out enough free contraceptives and abortion services, that's the real root of the poverty cycle").

>collateral damage and rippling effects into their respective communities all the time.

Study history, and we find that declaring war on those things increases the collateral damage and massively strengthens criminal syndicates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com