Hacker News Reader

Comment by gobrewers14 | Hacker News Reader

>There are other substances that most people really don't think should be accessible to everyone

This is not how a free society operates. I choose what I put into my body and not you or anyone else. If doing so causes me to commit a crime, then punish that crime, but banning drugs because "most people" don't like them is not freedom. If you don't like them, then don't do them.

>Is it even possible to be a responsible Heroin user?

A free person should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their responsibility instead of it being assumed such responsibility is not possible simply because a majority of the populace finds a substance distasteful.

View on HN

> I choose what I put into my body and not you or anyone else.

Unfortunately, the US public and the US government never accepted this principle. Practically everything you put in your body - at least in the US - has to be approved by the government. Sometimes by several branches of it. Food, drink, medicine, whether you swallow it, inject it, smoke it or rub it in - the government has its say in it. In 20 states you can't even legally drink raw milk, and in those that allow it in principle, require you to jump through a lot of hoops to achieve it. Such is the reality of the nanny state, and unfortunately the US public - the Land of the Free - is largely completely OK with it and would never vote to remove it.

As a society we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over freedom, as long as the tradeoff is sufficiently profitable: we have seatbelt laws, we did lockdowns during the pandemic, and you can be involuntarily committed for mental health.

I think a much better argument is to point at countries that decriminalized drugs and didn't see an increase in crime. If legalizing marijuana resulted in a 10x rise in crime I'd 100% for keeping it illegal

(This is all from someone who is very much AGAINST the war on drugs)

Just a few thoughts.

> I think a much better argument is to point at countries that decriminalized drugs and didn't see an increase in crime.

I agree.

> we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over freedom

Who is "we"? A majority telling a minority "we" know what's best for you at the expense of your freedom is very dangerous rhetoric.

> we have seatbelt laws

In this analogy, I would argue drugs = cars and seatbelts would be some safety measure on where drugs could be used (like no heroin injecting within 100 ft of a school, etc...) which seems like a reasonable restriction. But banning cars because a majority of the population thinks they are dangerous and people cannot drive them responsibly would be absurd.

There are other cases where society punish people before they commit a crime. We punish people from driving under the influence, even if the drug has yet to cause an accident. Society and the majority of the populace has generally decided that the risk to society is bad enough to make it illegal.

Under the process of law making, a lot of things has been made illegal because it adds a risk to society. From a simplistic perspective it is just risk management, with risk on one side and the cost of the mitigation on the other side. It is not necessary any ideology behind it, and thus the removal of one costly mitigation strategy can have little impact on other strategies that are less costly.

All drug use has health costs. If healthcare is public or heavily subsidized then the taxpayer has to foot the bill for every unhealthy decision that others make.

We can have a free society where people are free to put whatever they want in their bodies, and to suffer the health outcomes and poverty and combination of those things freely as well, if they make bad decisions.

What we can't afford as a society is to give free health care and UBI to people who choose to destroy their bodies, at the expense of everyone who chooses against their own interests to be productive members of society, assuming there are enough people who wouldn't choose to live on the dole and do drugs if they were legal.

So should we criminalize being obese as well before implementing tax-payer funded healthcare? Yuck.

No, but we could start making them pay more for their airline tickets.

I don't care about the airlines, they're increasing medical costs for the whole system. Obese people have a greater incidence of injury and illness than the non obese population. When the percentage of obese people increases, it furthers the strain on the medical system. This ends up increasing costs and wait times while decreasing quality of service.

You're not wrong, but causality is REALLY hard. What about the obese person who got that way from taking prescribed corticosteroids for a malady that was not his fault?

What about people who got that way before they turned 18 because their parents fed them junk every day, and the window of puberty had closed?

What about alcoholics who are compulsively drinking their calories?

I know there are a lot of people who are just lazy and stupid, but good luck proving that to legal satisfaction.

I don't agree with criminalizing obesity, but I wanted to point out the serious strain it puts our system under. Far more than drug use. Perhaps we shod consider regulating foods and/or having harm reduction education around food and eating habits.

You really want the intrusion of a government bureaucracy in your life telling you how much and which foodstuffs, that are perfectly safe when eaten in moderation, you can buy? Think for a while about how this can go wrong, and about what kind of agency you want over your body.

We already have that when it comes to drugs. I'm saying the industry should be regulated better, instead of a free for all. Regulation is not all or nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com