6 ms·

I think its a reflection of having govt dominated by lawyers. Economist and social scientists would see this as a failure of markets, and do some analysis to f

I think its a reflection of having govt dominated by lawyers. Economist and social scientists would see this as a failure of markets, and do some analysis to figure out a balanced approach to create some sort of Laffer curve. I think going the other direction and allowing a free for all situation with substances would be a problem too. There is a reason why its in my interest to not have my neighbor stockpile chlorine in his basement. The best example I can think of is the Israeli govt or the Chinese govt. Where the Israeli govt since they actually have a serious terrorism problem, do not have things like the TSA. The other problem in the UK is old people who have been brainwashed to believe that drugs/homosexuality are terrible. Its going to take a generational purge for the political needle ( no puns intended ) to move.

adrusi 10y ago
There is a reason why its in my interest to not have my neighbor stockpile chlorine in his basement. What does this have to do with drugs? Maybe some extremely fringe libertarians like the idea of no substances being regulated, but a purist attitude would have to extend even to things like weapons-grade plutonium. Nobody is proposing letting people have chemicals that have to be handled very carefully without following strict procedures. Drugs can't explode and kill everyone within half a mile, but even with drugs I don't think anyone is advocating for complete anarchy. The most radical serious approach is one where any adult is free to buy whatever drug they want, but not in some kind of "free for all". Particularly addictive drugs, like opiates and meth, might need to be sold by the state. Other drugs could be sold privately but only by professional vendors abiding by a set of regulations. Any solution that doesn't allow people to get the drugs they want doesn't address the argument that prohibition limits people's right to manipulate their consciousness, which is epistemologically one of the most important things someone can do. The problem of drug availability attracting more users can be solved in ways that don't keep them out of reach of people who have made a well reasoned decision to use them: cigarettes are highly available, but few Americans take up smoking today.

adrusi 10y ago

There is a reason why its in my interest to not have my neighbor stockpile chlorine in his basement. What does this have to do with drugs? Maybe some extremely fringe libertarians like the idea of no substances being regulated, but a purist attitude would have to extend even to things like weapons-grade plutonium. Nobody is proposing letting people have chemicals that have to be handled very carefully without following strict procedures. Drugs can't explode and kill everyone within half a mile, but even with drugs I don't think anyone is advocating for complete anarchy. The most radical serious approach is one where any adult is free to buy whatever drug they want, but not in some kind of "free for all". Particularly addictive drugs, like opiates and meth, might need to be sold by the state. Other drugs could be sold privately but only by professional vendors abiding by a set of regulations. Any solution that doesn't allow people to get the drugs they want doesn't address the argument that prohibition limits people's right to manipulate their consciousness, which is epistemologically one of the most important things someone can do. The problem of drug availability attracting more users can be solved in ways that don't keep them out of reach of people who have made a well reasoned decision to use them: cigarettes are highly available, but few Americans take up smoking today.