What’s the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone isn’t hurting others?
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra...
If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Yes there are individual cases, but most of these would be destroying their lives in some other available way if opiods weren't available, like heavy use of alcohol.
Yes, we definitely are sacrificing some of everyone's bodily autonomy because we think it's less bad than the consequences of putting no limits on it.
Caffeine, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Cannabis, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, biological weapons
and on some parallel track:
BB gun, .22, Glock, AR-15, automatic rifle, RPG, cannon, tank, land mines, nuclear warhead
If there's even one thing on the above list that you'd not want to be automatically OK for every person in the world to own and operate (at least on a "until you hurt someone" basis), then you're putting an arbitrary limit which values "preventing likely harms to others" over absolute autonomy.
Even if you'd allow the warhead I don't think either of us can be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' -- just that it's most productive if we acknowledge which "paramount value" (perfect freedom vs. reduction in predictable harms to innocent others) we are prioritizing, and acknowledge that we have to make a significant sacrifice in the other one in order to do that.
Not to mention, do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me
If consumed in the same quantity, it might be.
> do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me
Botox is a neurotoxin originally derived from a bacterium. And various pesticides are regulated. Nicotine actually is a naturally occurring pesticide, though these days BigAg companies produce far more potent "Neonicotinoids" for killing insects.
Anyone can just claim something is "harmful" but if they can't really state how then why is there any reason to believe the statement
> People who use marijuana have an increased risk of heart disease and heart attack, according to a large study led by researchers at Stanford Medicine.
> The study also showed that the psychoactive component of the drug, known as THC, causes inflammation in endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels, as well as atherosclerosis in laboratory mice.
> The inflammation and atherosclerosis can be blocked by a small molecule called genistein that occurs naturally in soy and fava beans, the researchers found. Because genistein has limited brain penetration, it doesn’t inhibit THC’s ability to stimulate appetite, dull pain and tamp down nausea — characteristics vital to medicinal marijuana users.
...> I expect we will begin to see a rise in heart attacks and strokes in the coming years.
If you go the Fava bean route, know that it can cause illness in some people. Soy is safer, and purified genistein (available as a supplement) probably safer still.
I definitely think cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.
With opioids not really, not easier than with rat poison.
With guns it's super easy, so they should be regulated.
I would not limit your freedom which allows you to hurt yourself, but I would limit your freedom which allows you to hurt me, because that would limit my freedom. Worry about yourself and your loved ones, leave my wellbeing to me.
Most people don't know a dealer, and don't have the confidence to try to find one without worrying about the risk of contacting a narc or a tattletale or in some other ways destroying their lives because of the legal system.
Hurdles matter. It's like common sense gun control- red flag laws, waiting periods, assault weapon bans, etc. None of those things make it impossible to have a mass shooting - but they make it a little harder, and that will stop a certain percentage of people.
Dangerous drugs like opioids should be available, cheaply, by prescription only, and "addiction" should be a sufficient reason for the prescription. This makes the safe and secure drug source the correct choice for vulnerable addicts, still lets us drive the black market and drug cartels out of business, it prevents crazy impulse purchases, and the requirement to renew your prescription periodically gives you a chance for a responsible adult to non-judgmentally offer you resources for achieving sobriety. It's a win-win-win, guaranteed to lower death tolls and crime rates, but unlikely to increase the number of addicts.
There is absolutely an epidemic of opioid addicts.
I know I'm happy certain drugs aren't easily available.
Teaching what addiction is like is much better at curbing it.
The easiest way to do that is to have someone hold their breath as long as possible until their body is screaming for air each time, for about half an hour.
Because that is what drug addiction is like, and taking the drug is like taking that breath of air, instant relief, until you run out of air again and you're in hell waiting for the next fix. Over and over. Never ending.
I'd say films like Trainspotting did a much better job at stopping heroin than any outright ban ever did.
People have some funny notions about the health consequences of opioid addiction.
In 1942, Burroughs enlisted in the U.S. Army to serve during World War II. After being turned down by the Office of Strategic Services and the Navy, he developed a heroin addiction that affected him for the rest of his life, initially beginning with morphine.[1]
I don’t find this argument convincing at all in the modern era. Synthetic drugs and even commercialized organic drugs are significantly more potent than anything that could be found a century ago.
Synthetic cannabinoids are vastly more addictive and dangerous than cannabis ever could be, for example. Synthetic drugs like MPDV are known to produce compulsive redosing even in people who could moderate their intake of traditional drugs like cocaine.
You can’t compare what’s available now to historic drugs.
Make the really hard stuff only available by prescription.
Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption.
Mostly, after the brief sharp drop to around 30% of pre-Prohibition levels, just the much smaller (consumption at around 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels) effects of the de facto tax collected by organized crime that prohibition imposed (“Changes in consumption were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during prohibition”.) [0]
And, both nicotine and alcohol have substantial regular taxes now, which serve the same purpose without fuelling organized crime, so prohibition would just redirect funds from the public coffers to criminal enterprise.
[0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... , p. 8
It’s possible to do a lot of damage with heavy drinking, yes, but it’s not true at all to suggest alcohol is the most damaging drug. There are numerous synthetic drugs that can produce long lasting damage or even death even in experienced drug users who believe themselves to be consuming responsibly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine
> While desomorphine was found to be faster acting and more effective than morphine for the rapid relief of severe pain, its shorter duration of action and the relatively more severe respiratory depression produced at equianalgesic doses, as well as a high incidence of other side effects such as hypotension and urinary retention, were felt to outweigh any potential advantages.[15][16]
From [15] we have: short duration which is independent of dose, tolerance, persistent decrease in respiratory rate, <when used to treat severe chronic pain> less sleep compared to morphine, possible greater withdrawal symptoms than morphine.
For medical uses [15] cites some good uses where it is preferable to morphine, but this is a drug that's even more worthy of regulation than morphine itself.
...at a price they can afford. Otherwise it still would be a thing, regardless of schedule 1 legality.
I find in general drug discourse making these comparisons isn't super helpful. The risk and damage profile of different drugs is very complex. Mdma in frequent use isn't very damaging in one sense, but can really impair cognitive function long term which can reduce quality of life as much as liver damage of drinkers or COPD of heavy smokers (as a simplified illustrative example)
I think presenting a view that all things are toxic and that healthy use of anything is down to how, why and when it is used is better for normalising the conversation rather than doing X vs Y showdowns.
https://www.nytimes.com/1914/02/08/archives/negro-cocaine-fi...
> Led by pietistic Protestants, prohibitionists first attempted to end the trade in alcoholic drinks during the 19th century. They aimed to heal what they saw as an ill society beset by alcohol-related problems such as alcoholism, family violence, and saloon-based political corruption. Many communities introduced alcohol bans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and enforcement of these new prohibition laws became a topic of debate. Prohibition supporters, called "drys", presented it as a battle for public morals and health. The movement was taken up by progressives in the Prohibition, Democratic and Republican parties, and gained a national grassroots base through the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. After 1900, it was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. Opposition from the beer industry mobilized "wet" supporters from the wealthy Roman Catholic and German Lutheran communities, but the influence of these groups receded from 1917 following the entry of the U.S. into the First World War against Germany.
Direct evidence is that we still call tax on alcohol and tobacco "sin tax".
Other psychedelics were more popular in white communities. For instance, American Counterculture started in the 1960s and by 1966 Congress passed the Drug Abuse and Control Amendment. This was directly to address magic mushroom and LSD use. By 1970 we had the Controlled Substances Act which placed all psychedelics under Schedule I. The only exception being for Native Americans. [2]
Cocaine is a bit more interesting because it actually was commercially viable for a long time. It was in everything from Coca-Cola to wine and cigarettes. It was banned in 1914 with the Harrison Act. [3] This one was banned for a mix of legit and racist reasons. It's documented that internationally there was more crime due to addiction spreading like wildfire after the Spanish-American and Philippine-America wars. On the other hand, the language used in the US to gain traction to ban it was entirely racist and inaccurate as most users of Cocaine were white. [4]
Nixon did aim Marijuana enforcement at the Black community. Rhetoric in the 1800's used racist language to get the bills passed, but primary users were white. Almost all other prohibitions had to do with morals, religion, and crime. Sometimes it was a mix of all of the above. The commonality in almost all prohibitions was putting more of ones opponents in jail.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat... [2]: https://psychable.com/history/history-of-psychedelics-in-ame... [3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8473543/ [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act
Firing a gun into the air is ill-advised and illegal because such bullets have a tendency to randomly impact and maim or murder bystanders within the radius of a couple of miles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/15/firi...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-bull...