Search Ideas

I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:

… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.

So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.

In short, making drugs illegal makes them more dangerous, not less.

To this end, @davies may be able to revive #4058 by editing it to call for the abolition of public property, too.

This is a fair point. I’ve seen videos out of Portland, OR, where most (all?) drugs have effectively been legalized, and public parks are an absolute shit show now.

Opponents of legalization like to point to this footage as evidence that legalizing drugs doesn’t work. But I think it just goes to show that if we’re going to legalize drugs, we also need to abolish public property. (We should do that regardless.)

Regulation begets more regulation. Once you have public property, you need to pass laws about what you will and won’t have on said public property. Conversely, just removing those laws without also abolishing public property causes trouble.

No half measures.

In limited areas like driving it makes sense because people don’t drive 24/7. But outlawing something in general affects them 24/7. So it’s not the same thing.

If drugs were legal, they’d be less dangerous, see #4964. If alcohol were illegal, error correction (including correcting safety errors) would get harder not easier.

I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:

… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.

So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.

I have zero experience on the drug market, but I think it’s fair to assume that companies that want to get business by inhibiting people’s creativity rather than enhancing it don’t particularly care about consent.

I don’t expect honest advertising from such people. I expect trickery, not consent.

Predatory businesses can’t limit customers’ creativity without the consent of the customer, so these issues are inextricably bound.

I agree, but this criticism chain is about predatory businesses limiting their customers’ creativity, not their own.

It is not the business of the government to prevent people from severely limiting their own creativity.

denies human creativity

No, they’re still creative, and they could overcome the addiction if they knew how, but their creativity is being severely limited.

Getting customers addicted making it "so they cannot exercise their free will" denies human creativity, and opens the door for all sorts of draconic laws where people are "protected from themselves".

Drugs are currently illegal. Although drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all-time high.

Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough to warrant taking away drug users’ legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) drug use.

Drugs are currently illegal. Athough drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all-time high.

Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough to warrant taking away drug users’ legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) drug use.

Not all cases of wanting more of something are cases of addiction.

I want to buy a second chair because I enjoy the first one, not because I cannot help but buy another.

Getting customers addicted means making it so they cannot exercise their free will (or have serious trouble doing so). They’re effectively unable to criticize ‘buy another’ as a course of action.

Making alcohol illegal has been tried and was disastrous. Drugs are already illegal, which is arguably also disastrous. Those who advocate MAKING most drugs illegal but not alcohol are, I think, people who want to outlaw weed.

Drugs are currently illegal, and though drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all time high. Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough, to off-set drug user's ability to use legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) society.

Drugs are too broad of a category. Is widespread cocaine use the same as occasional magic mushrooms? The latter is suggested to have neuro-protective benefits.

Subjectively applies to every good product that makes its purchasers want to buy more of it. Like good food, video games, comfortable chairs.

To produce, purchase, sell, or to use?

If the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)

E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.

In today's society they only have this ability to a limited degree, and would still have to deal with the drug users in public.

Communities could exclude drug users.

Violating the rights of other people depends on whatever their rights are. If we replace it with "desires", or use a libertarian way of saying "aggress on", then it's really just up to the people. I'd rather not live around drug users (depending on the drug), even if none of them physically assault me. I.e. "violation" is subjective, and ultimately decided by the polity that creates the laws.

Drugs are a net negative for society.
(This branch of the conversation has been moved to #4137)