Comment by unalone | Hacker News Reader

Comment by unalone | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not going to go there, but ask yourself how innocent you really are.

I'm not innocent. I'm a human being. I've offended people and made an ass of myself and done things that I regretted. Does that make me somebody worthy of death? (Frankly, if I were to make a list of "things that would be good excuses for somebody else to kill me," drug use wouldn't be in the top 10, because at least that hurt nobody.)

What about cool, athletic Juan in Mexico who was executed for refusing to join the Zetas? What about mayor Carillo who was gunned down in an intimidation assassination?

That's a good reason to encourage legalization followed by business supervision. Used to be people were killed over alcohol. Now people have turned winemaking into an art, and not many alcohol gang deaths occur.

What about Jake who died of an overdose in the frat house because he thought drugs were cool?

What about my grandmother, who died of lung cancer? Or the people who die of alcohol abuse?

The solution is education. My college has many hard drug users, and zero hard drug deaths.

> drug use wouldn't be in the top 10, because at least that hurt nobody

Unless you produce your own drugs and consume them secretly, that is not true.

> That's a good reason to encourage legalization...

The reality is, drugs are not legal. You can't go there.

Unless you produce your own drugs and consume them secretly, that is not true.

The only people hurt were hurt due to illegality. Who is hurt when you drink wine? Used to be wine was illegal, and people got hurt until alcohol was legalized.

The reality is, drugs are not legal. You can't go there.

Drugs being illegal isn't hard reality. The solution is to legalize them rather than to stop persecuting the people who are using them.

I agree with your solution for pot at least, but having that position doesn't condone continual usage while it's still illegal, you know?

My mindset - one that many other people share - is that you should worry less about the law and more about whether or not what you're doing is moral and good. I'll break the law if the law is bad, without feeling very guilty.

I agree with that too, but collateral consequences are not to be overlooked. If you break a bad law which, in turn, causes people to suffer, you should feel guilty.

It depends. If I'm making drugs illegally, and in doing so I shoot some guy to keep him away from my drugs, then I should feel guilty. But if I'm not directly involved in that violence, then my feeling guilty for that illegal process only encourages the people who would use your morality to enforce their own corrupt principles. Not feeling guilt for the things you didn't do forces the corrupt laws to look at themselves and eventually revise.

How do you define direct vs. indirect involvement?

If a weapons dealer sells a terrorist a bomb knowing it will hurt innocent people, the dealer might not directly detonate the bomb themselves, but I think we would still hold the dealer partly responsible for supplying the tool.

Likewise, if a buyer buys an illegal good and it is known that, somewhere down the line, people were killed in the process of getting that good to the buyer, the buyer shares responsibility for supplying the motive, money.

Have you ever gone 1 mph above the speed limit? Jaywalked? Loitered? Looked at pornography before you were old enough? Groped someone before you were of age? Had sex before you were of age? Drank underaged? Smoked underaged? Had a friend give you a few vicodin when you sprained an ankle? Given yourself a few dodgy deductibles when you filed your taxes?

All these things are fairly minor, but they are all CRIMES. Crimes that people perpetrate all the time. And we'd have to put nearly everyone in jail if we strictly followed 'reality'.

Most of those are not crimes, but civil offenses. The possession and distribution of illegal drugs on the other hand, are criminal.

That's a difference only of degree.

Sure, but I don't understand how you can belittle that. Partaking in the illegal drug trade is obviously not like jaywalking.

> Partaking in the illegal drug trade is obviously not like jaywalking.

You're right, they are not alike. Jaywalking is illegal for safety reasons (to both the offender and more importantly the driving public).

On a moral basis, I find neither offense objectionable unless you hurt someone in the process.

> On a moral basis, I find neither offense objectionable unless you hurt someone in the process.

How can you ignore the violence that is unarguably a by-product of the illegal drug trade?

You're arguing for the other side now. You just (correctly, IMO) attributed the violence of the drug trade to the fact that it is illegal.

There's no violence in the tobacco or alcohol trades, largely because they are legal and regulated. It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.

I don't think I'm arguing for the other side.

The other side argues: a) because illegal drugs should be legal (at this point in time), b) contributing to demand by buying or selling illegal drugs is acceptable (at this point in time).

I'm arguing, or at least trying to argue: a) because illegal drugs are not legal (at this point in time), b) contributing to the demand for illegal drugs by buying or selling is not acceptable due to the violence that it fuels (at this point in time).

I define something acceptable as something morally permissible. If that makes sense.

> It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.

I would be sincerely interested in this topic, if you would like to go there. :)

> I would be sincerely interested in this topic, if you would like to go there. :)

Sure, do you blame consumers for buying clothing products that were manufactured using sweatshop labor? No, because the consumer had no intent. You blame the company that operates the sweatshops.

Do you blame civilians in Africa or the Middle East for the atrocities committed against aid workers? No, because the starving civilians have no intent of hurting aid workers. You blame the corrupt governments that perpetrate the atrocities.

Your argument when it comes to drugs rests upon the combination of current legal status and some moral presuppositions. I think the question of moral acceptability is orthogonal here. It is empirically true that people will purchase and use drugs, no matter what your moral sensibilities tell you.

Blaming the consumer is a fruitless effort when it comes to actually promoting better health and safety in society.

This argument could just as well be used to claim that our government is acting immorally by continuing to enforce policies that all evidence suggests promote violence.

In symbolic terms: government:drug laws == consumer:drugs

We can fix things on either side. Moral arguments are irrelevant -- we should fix whichever side yields the most productive result.

jfornear, you're missing the points we've all made. The drug trade only results in violence because right now, every step to bring drugs to consumers is illegal. That means that it's unmonitored, and results in violence. Since you're breaking the law either way, no matter what you do is illegal, so there's no incentive to be peaceful in your processes.

If the drug trade were to be legalized, suddenly people could profit more by accepting business regulations, and violence would lower.

The point I've made elsewhere here is that it used to be producing alcohol led to violence, thanks to the Prohibition. Once alcohol legalized, businesses started making drinks rather than criminals, and the violence stopped.

No, I agree with your point. I just take it further by holding consumers responsible for fueling that violence when they could have done otherwise, not contributed to demand by obeying the laws.

To make an analogy, it is similar to supporting sweat shop labor by buying Nikes (or whatever companies still use sweat shop labor). The argument in the case of illegal drugs is that handing over money to people engaged in violence makes it more likely the violence will continue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com