Comment by shubb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shubb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So I smoke normal, legal cigarettes. About 10 a day, 20 when I'm stressed. I started about 20, borrowing them off friends, and it's been maybe 8 years now.

The first 2 years, I didn't realize I was addicted to them. I just smoked when I wanted, which was between every lecture and with my friends in the evening. Then I tried to stop.

Quitting smoking is weird because sometimes you can just stop, and don't feel the need to smoke (until a couple months later you get drunk and buy a pack).

Other times, it's really hard. As in horrible. Your brain is trying to trick you into doing it. Telling you that your girlfriend (who asked you to stop) will leave you if you don't have one and calm down. Telling you that you haven't seen (smoking friend) in a long time. Just like you can't perceive your blindspot, you can't spot your own irrationality. This, I think, is the biggest reason smokers don't quit. It's relatively easy to fend off cravings, but recognizing irrational, addiction driven thought is hard.

Anyway, so one day I'm in a medical stats class. The lecturer is making a joke about a graph. It seems to show smoking is protective against prostate cancer. Smokers are super unlikely to die of prostate cancer. It looks convincing. Smokers don't survive to die of prostate cancer. It convinces me not to smoke again. I make my way downstairs, and grab a bagel. I have an exam next period, and I'm behind in that class. I can't focus without a cigarette. I light up, and keep lighting up, and now it's 5 years later, and I'm not going to die of prostate cancer.

There is this idea that humans are rational entities capable of making free choices, but we know they are really, really not. Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow, a great (nobel prize winning) economics book explains that there are situations where humans predictably make bad choices. Addictions are one of these. If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs.

"If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs."

Ok, then... if you could do any political change in the society without stripping essential freedoms, what change do you think would be most effective in stopping/alleviating the drug problem? It seems to me that the best way would be to legalize them all: it would make it possible to control the supply, detect problem cases, remove a lot of criminal markets and thus actual crimes with victims, and get more taxes. Even the "think of the children!" aspect seems to be better covered by this, since it's quite a lot easier to enforce ID checks in legal shops.

@drivebyacct2: I'm hoping what you read wasn't what I meant. I meant that, I can't agree with the view that people should have the right to decide what they put in their bodies, because it is based on the idea they are making a rational decision. As addictive substances is a situation where people repeatably make irrational, bad choices, then that can't hold.

Like a lot of startupers know most new companies crash, but believe they are different, I believe that I will quite smoking one day (just never today). So I don't need protection. Obviously. But other people do. Hopefully I'm someone elses other people.

>I can't agree with the view that people should have the right to decide what they put in their bodies, because it is based on the idea they are making a rational decision.

No, it isn't. It's based on the idea that people have a right to make their own decisions, rational or not. You obviously disagree.

You realize that "The government knows what's best for you, and must therefore prohibit independent decision-making" is the exact opposite of freedom, and more closely associated with authoritarianism and tyranny, right?

See, you are trying to say that there are two possible positions - either the government is allowed to interfere with peoples lives, or it is not.

Most people believe something in the middle - there are situations where they would like the government to interfere. For instance, if they pay you for a service, and you don't deliver it, they might want the government to take action against you. In this case, you could argue they are wrong, there are alternative mechanisms (e.g. escrow, reputation damage).

But there are situations where only potentially violent action will help - e.g. theft. In the lawless world of Bitcoin, theft is a constant concern, much less so than in the real world where a man with a gun is just a phonecall away. Could we maintain a society like this without any enforcement of law? Really?

So, if you allow me for a moment government interference in matters of murder and theft, maybe you will allow me interference in matters of identity theft. Then of fraud?

So most people end up willing to trade freedom for security to some extent. (And it matters little what they deserve. The world doesn't work like that). I guess you can choose your level of tradeoff by moving to Somalia or Singapore, or not moving.

My tradeoff level is 'I think the government should prevent people being harmed by predictable irrational behavior'. That's why I support an age of consent, an age of criminal responsibility, regulation of harmful addictive substances, and socialized mental health care.

You may not. I hear it's sunny in Somalia. If you move, I'd love to stay on your couch for a bit.

> there are situations where they would like the government to interfere

> Could we maintain a society like this without any enforcement of law?

> I think the government should prevent people being harmed by predictable irrational behavior

So it seems you believe that a government is a monopoly on force, but think it's a good thing. a very interesting viewpoint.

How is that different from the famous quote [1] from 1984 about the picture of the future? I appreciate that this might be considered a slippery slope argument, but have you seen a benevolent monopoly before? I'm not sure I have.

[1] http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3041

>>have you seen a benevolent monopoly before?

I write too much, but you make an interesting point. More interesting because I find it hard to imagine a world where governments do not have a monopoly on force and the things function. Clearly, I need to think harder/better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com