I think the actual problem is people can’t seem to just use enough to stay functional. Given the legal opportunity to purchase heroin, most people will absolutely overdo it.
"Given the legal opportunity to purchase X, some people will absolutely overdo it." This goes for some ridiculous things like Pokemon cards or collectible shoes as well. Should we ban those?
Surely some people became addicted to it (not that different from alcohol, nicotine, fatty sweets, or various prescription drugs), but it didn't destroy society.
One thing that’s missing in a lot of these discussions is strength and education. What strength was the Bayer drugs vs things available today, and how well informed was the average person that this was a product they could access recreationally.
Now there's more of a safety net (money, foster care, and ambulances/ERs) which is largely good, but provides more opportunity to enable addicts.
1) Not everybody reacts that way.
I've only ever been given high-end opioids when in extreme pain, but I hate the sensation.
My brain feels like it's encased in concrete. A higher dose simply puts me to sleep.
2) What gives you the right to tell people to not do something pleasurable?
Really. Many people have rough lives. We should help them find joy somewhat safely rather than shunt them into the dark.
this is a really good question and I had to think about it a lot. I think if all other variables were equal, I would have no problem with people doing something pleasurable. In contrast to say, a strict religious fanatic who vociferously preaches against wanking or rock music.
However, I think we can both agree that opiate withdrawals are not pleasurable, nor is the change in an addict's personality when they start putting drugs high and above everything else in life. I think we can also agree that there is a continuity between "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable", and opiates give the user so much pleasure that pales in comparison to anything else. Enough to substantially change their personality, for at least the ones who are susceptible to it (as you pointed out, not everyone becomes instantly addicted). So that's where my case for prohibition comes from.
There's the whole "Rat Park Experiment" that I think deserves a mention. Whether the experiment itself has been debunked (I can't remember) is irrelevant. I think it's worth asking the same question of Portland: is there opportunity here? Can someone get an entry-level job and be happy? If not, why? This is a liberal, government-micromanaged city. Why are things so dismal that people are choosing not to work? (If you wonder why I'm suddenly making this a partisan issue, it's because (1) the government has their hands on all the controls so obviously they could fix things, and (2) people are suggesting regulation of dope, so if the gov can't regulate a simple local economy, why would we think they can suddenly be the new dope dealer?). Why don't they double down on their taxes and fees and manipulate the city such that an entry-level, full-time employee at Dollar General or Taco Bell can rent his own apartment, raise a family with their spouse, have healthcare, own a car, have a vacation, and a 401k? The reason is because the far left doesn't actually represent the people. They'd rather distract everyone with gender pronouns and anti-racism red-herrings while their own citizens check-out of the late-stage capitalist hellscape their government created for them.
And, see, this is the crux. You are banning something for everyone even though only a smaller number seem to be susceptible.
The problem is that this applies to a whole bunch of things: porn, gambling, alcohol, etc. Why heroin and not alcohol which, in many ways, is much worse than heroin?
I agree that the base problem is that life sucks for many people, and we need to fix that. However, that problem is going to be slow in fixing, and we need interim, probably sub-optimal solutions in the meantime.
Then they’re out of the way.
One or way or another, none of us are getting out of this alive. Not sure where the religious conviction we must save all souls comes from or has any value.
Who is to say any progress we make won’t be undid by another pandemic we cannot predict, or some nutter launching the nukes
We have political agents hell bent on war and subjugating undesirables, rather than pushback against them let’s focus on some people who don’t want to live?
Why not ask Oceangate how the war against physics is going. It will always win and erode any social progress we think we made
I don't think that's the goal. The goal is to attempt to reduce harm of something that removes freedom. Try asking a drug addict if they want to keep taking drugs. I suspect you'll be surprised at the answer. Stopping drugs would be like achieving abstinence as the primary form of contraceptive. Both are impossible because they work on the same soup of chemicals, but one has evolved with some form of continuation in mind. The other is a direct injection, orders of magnitude stronger, that just fucks up all the machinery of the brain.
But hey the toxic mess we leave for the future to suffer through won’t be our problem so shrug
This is the most disingenuous and self righteous thread I’ve ever been involved with. Traditional catechisms and stubbornness will win out against physical reality. RBG fans I guess.
If the car has doors your can't unlock, and the plane forced you to fly or you die from withdrawals, both of which follow you around you're whole life honking their horns begging you to get back in, even if you do manage to stop, then your analogy could make sense.
Do you have any experience with addiction?
Having experience with the pain it causes, and not liking the idea of more families being ripped apart/abandoned due to a few milligrams, isn't self righteous as much as sympathetic. I think there's some compromise between complete freedom and "this thing completely removes freedom, so maybe it's a bad idea".
Both times my family wished for euthanization options rather than watch family rot
But patronizing high minds said no; in our society they must suffer until they die
Americans have spent so much time huffing toxic positivity whippets.
All the high minded worship and praise of the economy, tech, feeding notions of American exceptionalism has led us to believe we really can do anything
But we all can’t live forever and have no guarantee the future won’t just screw it all up again
Physics rules, not human philosophy. Reality itself is the root of our misery. There’s no eradicating suffering without eliminating humans; we cannot violate physics and the physical word fosters suffering. Erosion and entropy of all structure.
This forum is sounding way too religious. Thought it was science nerdy when I signed up but it’s just typical “America great!”
You generate waste and increase costs by reducing resources for others
You get in the way of others free agency due to management of your mess
Just by existing you impose yourself on others. Stop pretending physical reality doesn’t apply to you an vacuous political poetry about rights waves away externalized burdens your elder self will foist on the next generation to preserve your perception of rights at the cost of them to perceive what they value for themselves
I’ve been in pain from surgery multiple times, it’s awful. You’d leave dying people in pain to suffer through it versus violate spoken tradition of the dead. Our own experiences mean nothing to you, just adherence to philosophy.
No, we're better off regulating safety, setting increasingly strict pollution and mileage standards, and continuing to update laws to eliminate behaviors such as DUI or texting to continue to have those freedoms while limiting externalities.
What are your thoughts on the death penalty in Singapore?