>> if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used?
> i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still.
You might be surprised that alcohol is not a low-risk drug by some measures. I certainly don't consider it to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_harm_assessment_...
Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here. I would tend to agree with that, given my limited experiences with LSD, and fairly long experience with MDMA. Mind, any prat can abuse any drug.
> however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems.
I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work; I want them to be considered for legalisation based on relative harm. Again, see the above link.
>> The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
> but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others.
First up I completely agree with you "i don't care what someone does to themselves" and "your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom" but where I can't find agreement at all is "horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect". The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society and that is the ripple. Motorcycle accidents can be horrible even when they don't kill, and they do. Many other things. I'm afraid we may have to remain apart on this.
> if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol
I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level ("touch the booze again, Fred, and you go to prison"), but that might work. I'd also like to add from experience that violence without alcohol is very doable. And ditto the converse.
> alcohol and stress do not mix.
Alcohol for some can be a very good stress reliever for short-term stress. Not me though, but certainly some.
> so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief.
Agreed, but some people don't have that option.
> I have a delightful range of ...
> i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol.
One takes one's crutches where one can find them, the world isn't perfect. And frankly, I did just plain enjoy them when things weren't so crap.
> but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs, you might be surprised to hear.
> project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely.
I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad – well, that's my opinion anyway!
> but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society...social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole.
Agreed.
> exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here.
snap
> as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. ... and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities.
Again, we're going to have to remain separate on this. The damage caused by MDMA is statistically very low, and could be greatly reduced almost to nothing by education and quality controls. It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does. Well that's my impression. And either way, that's your position and I respect it, and maybe it's me seeing it through the wrong end of the telescope.
I'm very happy with this discussion, and I really want to thank you for taking the time and giving me a thoughtful and measured response from the other side. That is what I really want from HN, and don't often get it in this area! That really was excellent and the world feels a tiny bit saner now.
i am aware of that. i am using alcohol simply as a baseline. any other substance must not pose any higher risk. ideally less even.
Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here
i was not aware of that, but i guess the realization of this is why more and more places are considering making such drugs legal.
I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work
i was mainly talking about alcohol here. since alcohol is very easy to make, all that banning gets you is moonshine.
The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society
i disagree with that. sure, it costs insurance, and taxes, but noone else got hurt. if as a society we can't bear that cost then we'd have to ban almost all outdoor activities because they all carry some risk of injury. the result would be a very oppressive society. the cost that i worry about is the personal tragedy that results from being an innocent victim. horseriding does not cause bystanders to get hurt. motorcycles rarely do, but drugs and alcohol do, as do cars and guns (and gambling).
I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level
that won't work simply because by the time the relevant institutions to make that judgement are able to intervene the damage is already done. we need solutions that prevent the abuse from the beginning. only education and restricting access for anyone can do that.
> but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs
neither would i. but the alternative is to increase investment into education and healthcare ten-fold or more even. which is something i would absolutely support and prefer over allowing the use of drugs for self-medication. but that is much harder to achive. i am fighting for that though, whereas i am not fighting for drugs to be legalized. i merely allow that to happen by not fighting against it either.
> project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely.
I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad
well this is another point where we are going disagree, which is fine. basically i believe that using substances to alter your state of mind is a bad idea and should only be done under medical supervision and when necessary. (but again, i don't want to make a law out of this, unless it is necessary to protect innocent victims). but this is a whole topic of its own that i am not quite ready to argue here because i am not familiar enough with the details.
It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does.
i am more lenient on some activities because they are supported by the current consensus in society. if it were up to me, i'd eliminate any alcohol, smoking, gambling, private cars and guns from this planet. because they are all dangerous to bystanders and there are better ways to handle the problems they solve.
ultimately, no matter what choice we make, what matters is that as a society we will only make progress if we find consensus on the major issues that we face today. because only through consensus are we able to change direction if we find that some choice was a bad idea.
we are struggling with a lot of issues because we waste energy on fighting each other instead of looking forward.
i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still. drunk driving, domestic violence and many other things are potentially caused by drugs or alcohol, and reducing these requires reducing the use of alcohol or drugs. however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems.
> the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences.
The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately.
but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others.
your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom. if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol than give you the freedom to drink. (that's assuming that such a ban would work, which is questionable in itself)
the risks from drug use have to be minimized. but i also see the need to make some drugs legal in order to better control the quality and steer people away from bad quality drugs that are even worse.
if it was possible, i'd rather eliminate drugs and alcohol (and smoking) completely. since that is not possible i'll settle for whatever solution has the least negative effects on society (not on the individual).
do you think [avoiding alcohol] is the correct decision for everybody?
alcohol and stress do not mix. so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief. but the point for me is that never having consumed alcohol is what is protecting me from trying it to relieve stress now. that's not a decision i made, but something i could only learn from my parents, and i have to thank them for that.
I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally
i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol. i do accept that likely there aren't any other options for you though, so i understand your choice here. but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people?
project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely. but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society.
the problem here generally is that many people want to code their preferred attitude into law, when in many cases that is not useful. instead they should share and teach (without pressure), but allow everyone to make their own choices.
But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else?
social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole.
What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise.
exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here.
What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits?
as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. in fact, since my wife was always afraid of dogs due to a childhood incident, to her, dogs are more dangerous than horses. dogs can bite, cats can scratch, horses can throw you off or kick you. etc. different animals have different temperaments, and which animal or activity is right for someone is very individual. you can easily construct a scenario where horseriding is simply the most practical choice, compared to other options a person has available. horseriding is just one of many options on a large spectrum, and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities.
as an aside
"I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity"
i am surprised that people are surprised. i haven't learned riding, but i have rode on a horse once or twice. you are so high up and horses are so strong that to me the potential for injuries is no surprise at all.