Hacker News Reader

Comment by crystalmeph | Hacker News Reader

I'm actually in agreement with you here, but I can see the other side. You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large. If you make it illegal, the proportion who fall to its ill effects may be reduced, even if the cost to those who still use it is greatly magnified. It's a classic case of what's best for society versus what's best for the individual.

I, personally, would argue that enforcing overly harsh rules results in a net cost for society, due to the costs of enforcement, loss of productivity to society by those you put in jail, etc. But the motive behind these laws is not always just "muh morality," and it's not a sure bet that allowing people unfettered freedom in their personal life is a good thing for society.

View on HN

>you have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large

The problem is you can extend this to all sorts of things that people abuse. Sugar, video games, alcohol, caffeine, etc. The solution is not to put people in jail and ruin their lives, its to educate them on the risks and to provide solutions to get help when needed.

> You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large.

I can understand why someone may take this stance, but I think this argument is something of a hasty generalization when it comes to drug policy. For starters, the policy alone (prohibited vs decriminalized vs legalized) does not appear to be the determining factor in the "certain proportion" of the population that use drugs problematically or otherwise. The US consistently has some of the highest drug usage and abuse rates compared to our western counterparts in Europe. I don't know of the exact reason for this. Could be other cultural differences between the US and Europe. Could be the fact that most European countries approach drug abuse as a public health issue opposed to a criminal one, and focus on harm reduction and rehabilitation instead of jail time.

I can think of many potential reasons between the US and Europe that explains the difference.

  1. Europe has a greater emphasis on welfare and has greater social saftey nets

  2. US private healthcare makes it harder for the poorest in society to get drug-related issues cared for

  3. US War on drugs being a historical political selling point to gather voters

  4. Private prisons; lobbying for stricter drugs laws equals profit

  5. Over-prescription of pain medication by US doctors; lobbied by pharmaceutical companies for profit

Some of these points don't apply at all to Europe, or do with much reduced impact.

As with most issues, this one can be reduced to collectivist vs. individualist. I'm primarily an individualist. Hence my opinion.

That reduction is lossy. There's a large middle ground where free individuals make agreements with each other to cooperate in ways that make them all better off.

The previous commenter's handle alludes to one possible item, crystal meth: that's a substance that doesn't seem to have any redeeming value, and a lot of risk for other cooperative endeavors. So perhaps we should all agree not to traffic in it. (And if we later find a good use for it that stance can be revised.) Mushrooms have a very different calculus, and all that said I agree in general that the drug war has been very badly conceived and executed.

Not to take from the (very real I am afraid) dangers of substance abuse (starting with alcohol and sugar, of course) - I am curious: who you trust more to decide for the individual: the person itself or the larger social group?

Well said. Nanny state vs the sovereign individual.

Yes, and the world consists only of responsible sovereign individuals, who need no guidance at all.

I refer to the 18th century gin craze, here's an impressive print: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/William_...

This picture is a like a caricature of satire for poking fun at prohibitionists, complete with the think of the children meme in forefront with the falling toddler. I love it.

In addition to sovereign individuals the world also have only responsible nanny states, who would not abuse their citizens.

An individualist with no definition of an individual is quite useless.

In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors. Even in the most liberal countries, there are ways to declare particular individuals as wards of another (disability, elderly, children, etc). Without rationality, the basis of classical liberal philosophy disintegrates.

So if we want to be consistent as a liberal individualist, we need to place rationality on quite a high pedestal, which means at least making concessions that those taking drugs ought to be temporarily at least deprived of particular civil rights.

> In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors

It does not; classical liberalism is an ideology that depends on a particular structure of moral precepts of rights, independently of how people might make use of them.

The utilitarian, rather than deontological, argument for laissez-faire capitalism depends on the rational (in a very particular technical sense) actors, but this is (while people who identify as “classical liberals” overlap considerably with rhetorical, at least, advocates of laissez-faire capitalism) not the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com