Hacker News Reader

Comment by phyller | Hacker News Reader

It's ironic to me that some anti-control people that buck against the system don't seem to have a problem when it's them making decisions for others.

Making the drug and trying it on yourself is one thing. Sharing it with someone else who understands you and how you made it is somewhat similar. Convincing random people who don't know you to take it is crossing some sort of line, and setting up a situation where people are taking your homemade version of a non approved medication without even knowing it is just plain wrong. I know they are already taking heroin, but these are still people and not your lab rats. You shouldn't be making their decisions for them about what goes in their body.

In their do it yourself lab, what are they doing to remove stereoisomers?

View on HN

Their point that the paternalist-legal argument falls in the face of life-or-death circumstances has merit though.

How many unprosecuted crimes have been allowed in the course of war? Because it "had to be done"?

Prohibiting access to highly addictive narcotics? Makes some sense.

Prohibiting personal access to whatever you want to put in your body otherwise? Not such a strong argument.

If people want to risk killing themselves trying to cure their Hepatitis C infection, that's their business. In the same way we allow them to smoke, drink alcohol, drive vehicles, and own firearms.

You assume people understand the risks involved. I dont think they are capable of understanding the risks without having a background in chemistry. It's myopic to give uneducated people the ability to do chemistry in an uncontrolled environment that does not have proper ventilation, disposal, and safety/sanitary equipment.

Tobacco, alcohol, driving vehicles, and fire arms have all been regulated to limit use to prevent as much collateral damage as possible. It's no longer just their business when they're behind a steering wheel or holding a gun, or smoking/drinking in public.

That feels like banning the good because it's not perfect.

Are you comfortable with telling a heroin user using dirty needles that "We can't allow you access to HIV retardants because we can't guarantee your safety"?

Concern for the public is valid, but it's a slippery slope that freedom often gets pushed down.

That isn't a legitimate scenario. They were asking the drug dealer(s) to cut their heroin with the drug. Now an untrained individual is responsible for mixing in the proper dosage for their clients (for a drug that has not been proven to be safe/work, and maybe certain ratios dont dissolve quickly enough, or maybe smoking the heroin causes the drug to under go a molecular transformation from the heat), which is completely uncontrollable anyways because everyone shoots w/ different amounts and frequencies? AND assuming the dealer cares enough to notify each of their clients? You think that is ethical?

To answer your direct question though, yes, I am comfortable telling heroin users they cannot have access to HIV retardants until they have been proven safe, because you've made the false claim that this drug is actually an HIV retardant, when in reality it is untested.

Well, we have fundamentally different moral valuations of situations then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com