Even though it's the same government having to pay for healthcare for every drug related issue, childcare when parents are drug addicts, and criminal offences over drug related behaviour...If people were left to their own devices and allowed to try any drugs I think there would be a lot more chaos then there is now.
Yes, even with that. For now I'll accept your assumption that legalizing all substance use would reduce the health of the population; I'm not completely convinced, but I'm not so invested in this that I'm willing to read scientific papers for hours to argue that you're wrong.
I think what you're arguing is that publicly-funded healthcare comes with a social responsibility to keep yourself as healthy as possible. I'm going to argue that that's the wrong attitude. The point of funding healthcare publicly is to pool our resources and thus evenly distribute risk so it doesn't all fall on the head of a few people. One benefit of funding healthcare in this way is that we can *all* *afford* to take risks, safe in the knowledge that we will be protected by society if we are the unlucky ones who fall sick. The attitude I'm putting forward might seem tasteless and hedonistic to you, but I say life is for enjoying and having fun. What is the point of pooling risk if you aren't going to *take* some risk? There is enough wealth in the world to afford it.
At the heart of your argument is that principle that if we are pooling risk socially, we have a social responsibility - which the government should enforce - to keep our personal risk as low as possible. One problem with this principle is that risk is everywhere. Any action you can think off carries a "price tag" of risk with it. No action is "risk-free". As an example: going outside carries the risk that you'll fall and become injured, whereas staying inside carries the risk of vitamin D deficiency and poor general fitness. Risk is in every decision, so if we want to keep risk as low as possible we would have to put a lot of thought into every decision. If we wanted to use the government to keep risk as low as possible, we would have very few freedoms. I would say that rather than applying this principle to substance use and not other actions, we should give people the freedom to spend their risk however they choose.
I actually wasn't entirely buying my own argument just wondered what you thought about it. It's not like I don't drink or sometimes eat unhealthily, and I don't think alcohol, fast food or...risky stuff like skydiving etc should be banned. So ok, people should be allowed to take risks. But knowingly taking a highly addictive drug that ruins most peoples lives like heroin? I don't think it should be legal. I've heard of people enjoying weed, ketamine, ecstasy, cocaine...but not really heroin.
Tbh I just don't like drugs and if they're legal it sends a message to young people that it's alright to do heroin, cocaine etc.
I can understand where you are coming from. My family is touched by heroin addiction, quite close to me and it's pretty dark. I have friends who are touched by cocaine (to a much lesser extent). So, I get what you're saying when you're worried about sending the right message to kids. I'll counter by saying that the people most likely to be touched by addiction (people who are disadvantaged by their race or class or economic status) are those who are most likely not to trust the government anyway. It's already generally accepted in our cultures that substance use is dangerous; I don't think we need the government to send that message.
My second point you might find a bit tasteless: what does it matter if people do things that distort their bodies and minds? I believe that freedom means letting them hurt themselves. We should help them if they want to be helped, but not make their decisions for them. Freedom first, y'know?
Your thoughts on drug legalisation?
← View full post
Make 'em all legal. I don't recognise the authority of governments to say what we can and can't put into our own bodies.
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Even though it's the same government having to pay for healthcare for every drug related issue, childcare when parents are drug addicts, and criminal offences over drug related behaviour...If people were left to their own devices and allowed to try any drugs I think there would be a lot more chaos then there is now.
--
dom180
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Yes, even with that. For now I'll accept your assumption that legalizing all substance use would reduce the health of the population; I'm not completely convinced, but I'm not so invested in this that I'm willing to read scientific papers for hours to argue that you're wrong.
I think what you're arguing is that publicly-funded healthcare comes with a social responsibility to keep yourself as healthy as possible. I'm going to argue that that's the wrong attitude. The point of funding healthcare publicly is to pool our resources and thus evenly distribute risk so it doesn't all fall on the head of a few people. One benefit of funding healthcare in this way is that we can *all* *afford* to take risks, safe in the knowledge that we will be protected by society if we are the unlucky ones who fall sick. The attitude I'm putting forward might seem tasteless and hedonistic to you, but I say life is for enjoying and having fun. What is the point of pooling risk if you aren't going to *take* some risk? There is enough wealth in the world to afford it.
At the heart of your argument is that principle that if we are pooling risk socially, we have a social responsibility - which the government should enforce - to keep our personal risk as low as possible. One problem with this principle is that risk is everywhere. Any action you can think off carries a "price tag" of risk with it. No action is "risk-free". As an example: going outside carries the risk that you'll fall and become injured, whereas staying inside carries the risk of vitamin D deficiency and poor general fitness. Risk is in every decision, so if we want to keep risk as low as possible we would have to put a lot of thought into every decision. If we wanted to use the government to keep risk as low as possible, we would have very few freedoms. I would say that rather than applying this principle to substance use and not other actions, we should give people the freedom to spend their risk however they choose.
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I actually wasn't entirely buying my own argument just wondered what you thought about it. It's not like I don't drink or sometimes eat unhealthily, and I don't think alcohol, fast food or...risky stuff like skydiving etc should be banned. So ok, people should be allowed to take risks. But knowingly taking a highly addictive drug that ruins most peoples lives like heroin? I don't think it should be legal. I've heard of people enjoying weed, ketamine, ecstasy, cocaine...but not really heroin.
Tbh I just don't like drugs and if they're legal it sends a message to young people that it's alright to do heroin, cocaine etc.
--
dom180
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I can understand where you are coming from. My family is touched by heroin addiction, quite close to me and it's pretty dark. I have friends who are touched by cocaine (to a much lesser extent). So, I get what you're saying when you're worried about sending the right message to kids. I'll counter by saying that the people most likely to be touched by addiction (people who are disadvantaged by their race or class or economic status) are those who are most likely not to trust the government anyway. It's already generally accepted in our cultures that substance use is dangerous; I don't think we need the government to send that message.
My second point you might find a bit tasteless: what does it matter if people do things that distort their bodies and minds? I believe that freedom means letting them hurt themselves. We should help them if they want to be helped, but not make their decisions for them. Freedom first, y'know?