A thought experiment I think about is along the lines of: what would society look like, say, 10,000 years in the future, if everybody somehow magically had an Einstein-level of intelligence and rationality. In such a society, sure, the government probably wouldn't need to step in; the vast, vast majority of the population would either have little interest in the drugs in the first place, or, if they did, could be trusted to partake responsibly.

However, that's not the world we live in. We share our cities with fairly unintelligent, irrational people, that have no interest in higher ideals. Our cities are being destroyed and made unsafe by these people that are just out of their minds on drugs / mental issues, completely disconnected from society, vandalizing, breaking and entering, hurting other people. They obviously, demonstrably, can't be trusted to partake responsibly.

I guess the debate is to what level the government needs to step in to control such people and the actions they take. I'd say that since they've already demonstrated they can't be trusted to coexist with peaceful society, that some level of action needs to be taken. But it's tough because in an ideal society I'd say the correct thing is for the government to stay out of it. But we live in a far from ideal society.

Regulate the anti-social behavior, not the substance.

The problem is the places which legalized drugs also legalized anti-social behavior.

The substance is causing the anti-social behavior though, it’s putting people in a state where they’re not able to control their behavior or reason rationally about how it affects them and the people around them. In such a situation, you cannot just focus on the outcomes, you need to control the inputs as well.

No offense, but a very high degree of irrationality is to consider yourself to be rational. A good excuse would be if you are very young. Your characterization of drug users as unintelligent and with no interest in higher ideals merely demonstrates that you've had almost no contact with them, thus it is highly irrational for you to have an opinion on them. They are doing things that are bad for them and are therefore stupid? Coca Cola is a diabetes inducing poison, yet people drink it and feel good about themselves. Some will eventually get so sick from it and similar things they consume that they will go blind or lose a limb. Worse yet, others will consider Coca Cola a wonderful business and buy stock, which will go up. Coca Cola will continue to expand and improve, causing more havoc on society, raising the cost of health insurance for everyone. Stupidity as a way of life.

Stop referring to people with a problem as "such people", it implies there is something inherently wrong with them. There are a lot of people that have strong tendencies to addictions, but there are also a lot of them where a bad break or two pushes them the wrong way. There's a lot that can be done with education and prevention. How much of the now unnecessary police funds were redirected for these and other measures?

A person who becomes addicted to opiods, methamphetamine, or other "hard" drugs will with some probability require medical treatment and may cause other costs to society as well. I don't know what that probability is, but for opiods it's definitely not negligible, many people become addicted without intending to and later need medical assistance. So I do think there is a public interest in how much these substances are used, and it's legitimate for government to regulate them.

Why do you think everyone should get voting rights if there is a section of the society who want to actively harm themselves. What are their votes reflective of?

why do you want to create a policy for everyone based on actions of the few? the tails should be disregarded. so what if 5-10% of the people abuse a system that otherwise benefits the other 80-90% ? cost of doing business

This is quite frankly, a bizarre take that shows little understanding of drug use or society.

Why are you assuming what I think about voting rights? I never brought that up.

Anyone who consumes sugar, trans fat or smokes cigarettes should be unable to vote as well?

Anyone who disagrees with me should be unable to vote.

The paradox of tolerance says I should not tolerate anyone who is intolerant, and if they disagree with me then they are intolerant and we should not tolerate them.

Checkmate, fascists.

Well drug abusers also have the right to adopt kids. Not sure how any sane society should be tolerant of that.

i agree with no criminal penalties for drugs, but your justification seems ignorant of the negative externalities. i think a better justification is simply that the tradeoffs from legalization are worth it

> But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies.

Because we invest in people. We pay money to educate them, in many cases feed, shelter, and clothe them and in a variety of other ways. We expect citizens to contribute back into society. Having millions of zombies interested in nothing else than getting high is self destructive not only for the individuals we have invested in but also to our societies general longterm health.

So yes, government does have an active interest in having a healthy populace.

By that same logic more people are dying or ruining their lives from poor diet and lack of exercise. Should the government be mandating diet and enforcing exercise quotas?

That doesn't follow at all. People who eat poorly and/or don't exercise are not a drain on society like drug addicts sleeping on the street, stealing to fund their addiction, and contributing nothing. There's big differences and it's not even really nuanced. It's obvious these are different things.

Saying that we should encourage healthy lifestyles.

A food addict doesn't hold up a corner store to get their fix in a pack of candy, but their costs to the healthcare system are significant. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the United States was nearly $173 billion in 2019 dollars. Medical costs for adults who had obesity were $1,861 higher than medical costs for people with healthy weight*. High functioning drug addicts contribute plenty to society, much like there are high functioning obese people. What about the obese who don't contribute to society and sit around and play video games all day? The stereotype of a homeless drug addict is a very visible type of addict, but what of the wall street investment banker hooked on cocaine? 41.9% of Americans were obese (as of March 2020, same cdc link as above). They are a drain on society, and it's a bigger problem than you think. It's more insidious because it's less in your face than being mugged at gunpoint so it seems more benign, but it's causing massive issues.

* https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

When you’re passed out in the streets laying in your own shit then your business has become my business and we shouldn’t encourage that. You just keep comparing unrelated things.

You support the government encouraging (via incentives) drug addicts in the streets.

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that obesity is a bigger problem than you think.

> When you’re passed out in the streets laying in your own shit then your business has become my business and we shouldn’t encourage that.

When you're diet is so poor that you're literally shitting in the seat at McDonalds because you are drinking so much diet coke and eating so much grease. This is a real story I saw at a McDonalds less than a year ago. When the person got up there was a visible splat on the seat.

> Feel free to disagree. This is my personal political view.

How do you address the argument that drug users go on to be a burden to society?

> But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies.

It seems like it should if the result is a burden on society, though there are many potential solution to ameliorate the problem other than outlawing or restricting substances.

> How do you address the argument that drug users go on to be a burden to society?

I think there are point of views that are a much larger burden on society, and yet people are free to have them.

> I think there are point of views that are a much larger burden on society, and yet people are free to have them.

I claim this is an apples to oranges comparison. Controlling peoples views is an attempt at mind control vs regulating substances directly or indirectly which is a common practice, not putting lead into gas for example. Or indirectly regulated, eating of highly radioactive substances.

> But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies.

I agree with this in principle, but only to an extent. It's not the government's business to intervene when people fill their bodies with, say, ice cream, which makes them happy but has some health consequences borne by the individual. But on the other hand, the government should certainly not permit people to fill their bodies full of explosive substances like nitroglycerin, which might detonate when they are outside walking around public spaces, taking out innocent bystanders.

Hard drugs fall somewhere in between these extremes, because in addition to their first-order effects on the user's health and happiness, they also seem to cause second-order consequences on innocent bystanders. Under the influence of drugs, some users can become aggressive and violent, and lose control of and -- importantly -- responsibility for their actions. Under the influence of addiction, some users also resort to robbery or theft to fund their habits. Many also end up unable to care for themselves. Statistically, this occurs with enough likelihood that it's a predictable, although not inevitable, consequence of substance abuse. Punishing the crimes committed under the influence of drugs does not act as an effective deterrent. Much of the harm from hard drugs does fall on people with no direct relationship to the drug users themselves, and they will have a strong and legitimate self-interest in having these substances banned.

I absolutely want my government to have an opinion on what people put into their bodies. If I go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, and instead I get a loaf with a high concentration of bleach, used to clean the machines at the factory, and it kills me, I think the government should have an opinion on it. I think they should do what it can to prevent that from happening. I do want a government that regulates drugs so that if I buy Tylenol, I'm going to get Tylenol and not melamine pills. If someone is selling a pill and says it makes me lose weight or regrow hair, I want the government to have the opinion that if they make that claim, they must have scientifically run studies to back that up. I'm not saying the FDA is perfect, far from it! But the government's duty is to its people, so I, personally, think that government should play some role in what goes into people's bodies, to make sure people know what they're getting, and they're getting what they paid for.

That the government has extended their reach to criminalize things people choose to put into their bodies, and the resulting problems that's caused and causing, is a travesty, but I think saying the government should have _no_ opinion on that is going too far.

> I absolutely want my government to have an opinion on what people put into their bodies. If I go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, and instead I get a loaf with a high concentration of bleach, used to clean the machines at the factory, and it kills me, I think the government should have an opinion on it.

I don't think you intended it, but this is shifting the goal post.

My position is that I think an individual has the right to choose to kill themselves by any means of their choosing. Which means if someone chooses to drink a cup of bleach, I don't think the law should step in to stop them.

Murdering someone by offering them bleach disguised as something innocuous is a completely different matter that has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I don't disagree with you, but the statement you made was "But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies."

I'm not shifting the goalposts, I'm pointing out that statement, as written, can be read a different way, and that actually you might want the government having opinions about what people put into their own bodies.

Government regulation has everything to do with what you're talking about. You're saying the government shouldn't regulate what people put in their bodies and I'm saying the government should regulate what people put in their bodies. It's not that different.