Hacker News Reader

Comment by crux_ | Hacker News Reader

I suppose you had no problem with the poisoning of alcohol supplies during prohibition then?

(Reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/)

Just because a "drug" is socially acceptable does not make it any less dangerous, case in point: the tobacco industry in the seventies.

And even alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/

No, I am not for deliberate poisoning of mass consumed "drugs". But certainly I don't care that people die of their addictions to dangerous substances.

People are dying here in large part because the drugs are illegal; without the moderating effects of regulation (tort law, at the very least), the additives make them more lethal, without much recourse for the buyer.

I find your position hard to understand. It seems almost inhuman to me; that you would condemn people to death, because... liberty is immoral?

No, liberty per se, is not immoral. You or any human being on this planet is free to consume, enjoy or even abuse any substance you like. However, when the cost of your consumption or addiction becomes a burden on almost every other fellow human, then you have started "abusing" that liberty.

Do you really feel that "legalising" addictive and physical-dependence-causing "cocaine" will lead to a lesser burden on the collective society than the situation now? if so, then perhaps you need to go visit a rehab centre and see the devastating effect that any "abused" substance can cause -- irrespective of whether it is legal or not.

More importantly, there are enough humans suffering from natural diseases and disasters that could use help, than the few humans who are deliberately indulging in dangerous behaviour and be better dead than sucking precious resources away from those who are trying to merely survive, leave alone "lawyering" and "regulating" cocaine in their lives.

"Liberty" without "responsibility" is the definition "entitlement". Typically seen in individuals and societies too affluent for their own good.

You're missing the point that the vast majority of drug users are neither addicts or irresponsible. Even tobacco, the most addictive drug there is, is essentially non-addictive for roughly 70% of the people who use it. Of those that do abuse drugs, a large percentage are severely mentally ill and using drugs to self-medicate. For example, 44% of all the cigarrettes in the U.S. are consumed by the 2% of the population with severe mental illness. It's not the fault of these people that they're in pain all the time, and even if they weren't abusing drugs they'd still be non-functional anyway. In fact, many of them are probably a lot more functional on drugs than off them.

Don't forget the word pharmacist means someone who poisons people. It also means someone who cures people. Because the poison is always in the dose.

Do you have a citation for your tobacco statistics? Not trying to be an ass; I've just heard the opposite is true for tobacco. Something like 70% of people who begin using it casually eventually become addicted.

I can't find anything right now because it's not a very common statistic; most of the research focuses on how hard it is for people already addicted to quit. I definitely did read that stat somewhere though, although I think the exact number is somewhat controversial. If you dig around enough I'm sure you can find the research though.

> Do you really feel that "legalising" addictive and physical-dependence-causing "cocaine" will lead to a lesser burden on the collective society than the situation now?

I do. We only have on case so far : Portugal. And it looks pretty good, which, of course, flies in the face of the our government's War On Drugs(tm) propaganda.

We also have the case of US Prohibition Era, where prohibiting the substance made it worse, as people still consumed it, but just kept dying because government agents poisoned the supply. It also let criminals gangs flourish as the whole industry moved underground.

You are no fun, mate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com