This could get interesting....

[zapshe]

"Use does not necessitate addiction"

Certain drugs have a high likelihood of addiction after only a couple uses. Dead people can be replaced, addicts have to be taken care of, taken into facilities, may get arrested, etc.. They waste resources and don't contribute.

Moreover, heart disease kills over time, hard drugs knock people out of society quickly.

[helios]

As heart disease kills slowly, it consumes resources over a longer time period. Since it's more frequent than drug abuse, this waste is compounded many times.
Dead people can't be replaced. I don't mean this in a sentimental way, I mean the resources that were used in their raising and education are permanently lost when they die. A drug addict can be treated and become productive again.

I don't even need to argue that cardiovascular disease is a greater societal harm than drugs. If the rationale for banning drugs is that they're a societal harm, then there's equal reason to ban drugs as there is to ration food and impose mandatory exercise sessions for the entire population, as well as impose all sorts of other invasive policies that curtail personal freedoms.

[zapshe]

A drug addict can be treated and become productive again

Not if they die first, those drugs can kill fast in an overdose. And people can relapse. This is also not to mention that the government DOES try to stop heart disease. They say years ago that fatty foods correlated with heart disease and did some things to try and lower it.

If the rationale for banning drugs is that they're a societal harm

Immediate social harm with no benefit. The drug makes people act in ways they don't even want to act. They need help before they hurt people or overdose. During this whole period they can't be beneficial to anyone.

[helios]

those drugs can kill fast in an overdose

Overdoses affect an even more minute portion of the population than addiction. If you want go down this route we should look into how many people choke on food or drink, or burn themselves while cooking. Or hell, crash while driving.

This is also not to mention that the government DOES try to stop heart disease. They say years ago that fatty foods correlated with heart disease and did some things to try and lower it.

Oh, well. They "did some things to try and lower it". I fell like there's not the same level of effort being invested into the two problems under discussion.

Immediate social harm with no benefit.

It's not true that there's no benefit, though, is it? If using opioids was a completely unpleasant experience practically nobody would do it. There's clearly some benefit, however short-lived or small. Why is the euphoria derived from taking an opioid less "worthwhile" (or however you want to put it) than that derived from eating greasy food?
There's really only one correct answer, which is puritanism.

The drug makes people act in ways they don't even want to act.

Without getting into a whole philosophical debate about free will, that's not really entirely true. What addiction does is mess with your reward system so it becomes more difficult to prioritize longer term benefits.
Is there really any difference between being forced by your brain, or by circumstance, or by the government? Someone may truly believe that they should go out and do some cardio once in a while, and continue not to do so. How is that ultimately any different from, say, a gambling or gaming addiction? By one mechanism or another, the person is locked into a behavior which they know they should break out of, and can't. Is it so bad if that mechanism just happens to be a government?


You're not really refuting my argument, you're just reemphasizing that drugs are a worse harm. I don't agree, but even if they are, it doesn't matter. Once again: if the rationale for banning drugs is that they are a societal harm, then all behaviors that are a societal harm at all should be banned. What does it matter if it's immediate or not? Society is still going to be here thirty years from now. You should just be prevented from engaging in any behavior that harms society at all. Period.

[zapshe]

Overdoses affect an even more minute portion of the population than addiction

Why would the numbers matter? These drugs are illegal - hence the numbers are low. It wouldn't make sense to look at the number of people dying from drugs that are illegal and hard to obtain.

I fell like there's not the same level of effort being invested into the two problems under discussion

It isn't, but food is a more personal choice and there's no reason people shouldn't be allowed to eat fatty/unhealthy food, they just need to moderate themselves. Hard core drugs, however, aren't the same.

If using opioids was a completely unpleasant experience practically nobody would do it

Well, no benefit to society. Opioids have their place and dosage, no one should be allowed to give themselves opioids due to the addiction factor.

Why is the euphoria derived from taking an opioid less "worthwhile" (or however you want to put it) than that derived from eating greasy food?

There's nothing wrong with getting a euphoria from drugs, expect for the fact that people stop trying to get it naturally (the way evolution built us to get euphoria through actual deeds we've done) and start trying to just get more of it through drugs.

Food, on the other hand, has no replacement - and we need it to survive. It's so important for us to eat good food that you can literally go to school just for learning to cook great food.

What addiction does is mess with your reward system so it becomes more difficult to prioritize longer term benefits

Then let's say "greatly influences them". With enough will power, you can overcome any temptation, but not everyone has that willpower.

Is there really any difference between being forced by your brain, or by circumstance, or by the government?

Yes. Forced by your brain is the worst one because you're literally arguing with yourself. "I want X but I know my goals don't align with me getting X - me wanting X is a mistake and deep down I don't actually want X. X is so good though...."

Forced by your brain gives you internal conflict, forced by circumstance just means you had limited options and you do what you have to, forced by government means you have someone to blame - you keep your integrity because the conflict isn't from within.

Someone may truly believe that they should go out and do some cardio once in a while, and continue not to do so.

That's internal conflict - but its not serious.

the person is locked into a behavior which they know they should break out of, and can't

There are different levels of this though. Some behavior is worse than others, some temptations are more powerful than others.

Is it so bad if that mechanism just happens to be a government

I'm not saying its bad if the government interferes to an extent, but not to regulate diet and other personal things - that's going too far. At that point, they're interfering with me getting the quality of life at the level that I want.

And no, you can't argue, "What if someone wants a poor quality of life with a few hours of ups with cocaine?" If they want a poor quality of life, they can get it, but the bad thing about these hard core drugs is that they influence people too hard - they get a bad quality of life as a side-effect rather then from a conscious decision made in a normal mindset.

but even if they are, it doesn't matter

It does matter. It doesn't make sense for the government to legally allow drugs that are only harmful to people. Think of China with the opioid war - they had no choice but to deal with it. It can only hurt the people who use it and the society those people are in, hence why they make it illegal.

What does it matter if it's immediate or not?

Being fat kills slowly, but is overall a person's decision. Until their death, they can still be productive members. Druggies cause a burden to those around them and the facilities that eventually take them. They instantly become worthless to society - and the drug can spread to more people if made legal.

By the time someone dies of a heart problem, they've probably already made several children that have replaced them (not the exact job, but the idea is that given enough time the people available to work grows). However, drugs spread and immediately cause damage - its worse for everyone involved! It makes sense to regulate this drug - everyone loses when doing the drug.


However, this is not the same as, "I'm going to do X because that's what's best for the people". This is instead, "I'm doing X because society can't continue with this". Completely different mindsets - but they have overlap in what laws/policies end up being pushed out.

Society is still going to be here thirty years from now

That's not a given. Even if it was, the quality of life and the overall quality of the society is not a given.


Why would the government allow a drug that can literally cripple its society?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars

The resulting widespread addiction in China was causing serious social and economic disruption there.

EDIT:

I was writing this throughout doing a bunch of other things and didn't realize how much I had written 0-0

[helios]

there's no reason people shouldn't be allowed to eat fatty/unhealthy food, they just need to moderate themselves. [...] Well, no benefit to society.

You're applying a double standard. What's the benefit to society if someone eats something unhealthy but delicious?

Food, on the other hand, has no replacement - and we need it to survive. It's so important for us to eat good food that you can literally go to school just for learning to cook great food.

Great. So let's just ban everything except water and a bland paste with a balanced mixture of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.

Forced by your brain is the worst one because you're literally arguing with yourself.

Being forced by the government is obviously the worst one, because you're literally arguing with an entity that doesn't care.

Being forced by the circumstance is obviously the worst one, because you're literally arguing with fate.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing it. You'll need to actually argue for it.

I'm not saying its bad if the government interferes to an extent, but not to regulate diet and other personal things - that's going too far. At that point, they're interfering with me getting the quality of life at the level that I want.

And no, you can't argue, "What if someone wants a poor quality of life with a few hours of ups with cocaine?" If they want a poor quality of life, they can get it, but the bad thing about these hard core drugs is that they influence people too hard - they get a bad quality of life as a side-effect rather then from a conscious decision made in a normal mindset.

Your threshold is completely arbitrary. You give no rationale for why regulating certain things is bad but others is good.

It doesn't make sense for the government to legally allow drugs that are only harmful to people.

"It doesn't make sense for the government to allow behaviors that are harmful to people."

Being fat kills slowly, but is overall a person's decision. Until their death, they can still be productive members. Druggies cause a burden to those around them and the facilities that eventually take them. They instantly become worthless to society - and the drug can spread to more people if made legal.

Again a double standard, and again arguing from extremes. I can do that too: if the lifestyle you chose ends up giving you type 2 diabetes and you have to have your feet amputated you become a burden to society. Similar extreme arguments can be given for any activity that has the potential to disable a person without killing them.

However, this is not the same as, "I'm going to do X because that's what's best for the people". This is instead, "I'm doing X because society can't continue with this". Completely different mindsets - but they have overlap in what laws/policies end up being pushed out.

This might be a valid argument if only the most addictive and destructive drugs were banned. That's not the case in much of the world, though. In China and a few other places you can even get the death penalty for dealing any illegal drug. So if anything, this policy of limiting the gaming of children and teenagers is logically consistent. They should go further and extend it to the adult population, AFAIC.

[zapshe]

What's the benefit to society if someone eats something unhealthy but delicious?

Its not a double standard, instead its a delicate balance between people's freedom and just blatant social harm. You're free to shoot guns - just not at other people. You're free to use drugs - just not the kind that's hard core opioids that turns many people into addicts who are willing to do almost anything for another fix.

Its a delicate line - there's no double standard. The line doesn't begin at "beneficial to society", the line begins at "this is horrible for society and the people". Eating something unhealthy doesn't make the person unhealthy - constantly doing so makes people unhealthy. And fat people can still work and function as humans, addicts can't.

So let's just ban everything except water and a bland paste with a balanced mixture of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates

Why? That would literally lower productivity, I was just saying how important flavor of food is in our lives; that's what I meant by "great food".

Being forced by the government is obviously the worst one, because you're literally arguing with an entity that doesn't care

Perhaps its more of an opinion - internal conflict vs external conflict.

Being forced by the circumstance is obviously the worst one, because you're literally arguing with fate.

I mean, it happens all the time. And technically, you can't be "forced" by circumstance - the circumstance is simply forcing you to do something in order to maintain your priorities/goals/morality. "Which child do we kill!?" "I don't care, go crazy, kill both of them, I'm hitting the bar."

You'll need to actually argue for it

Internal conflict hurts inside, causes confusion, makes people doubt themselves and not know what they really want. External conflict is one where you get to keep your integrity, you can know who you are, what you want, etc.

Again, more opinionated, but internal conflict, especially with drugs, is terrible.

Your threshold is completely arbitrary. You give no rationale for why regulating certain things is bad but others is good.

I think it would be difficult to find the perfect line that separates what should/shouldn't be regulated.

Things to regulate would be... things that don't benefit people AND harms them AND harms society AND makes no sense to allow people to have control over themselves - government should probably be able to regulate. That's seems to make sense - though I can imagine a ton of loopholes exist for this. Some things that clearly should be regulated are obvious, some things that shouldn't be regulated are obvious, then you have some stuff in the grey area.

For example, it makes sense to me for the government to ban smoking - no benefit, causes addiction, causes health problems, harmful to people around the smoker. However, on the other hand, the smoker isn't too addicted to make their own decision on the drug and the smoker can still function in society.

That could be something in the grey area, but leaning more towards non-government regulation.

"It doesn't make sense for the government to allow behaviors that are harmful to people."

You're right. However, we humans value our freedom. The government has to balance between giving us freedom and not allowing blatantly awful things - especially opioids that literally affect our thoughts to such an extent!

if the lifestyle you chose ends up giving you type 2 diabetes and you have to have your feet amputated you become a burden to society

Sure, but it doesn't happen overnight. Notice how you said lifestyle - it takes years and years to be able to do this to yourself. Imagine if someone's job is just making decisions and doesn't need to physically do anything - then the person you described could still work and benefit society.

While it would make sense for government to regulate diet in a way that someone could never live an unhealthy lifestyle - that would be an INVASIVE disturbance of privacy and freedom. A person can CHOOSE to live an unhealthy lifestyle because eating the burgers makes them happy. You can choose to live a "happier" yet shorter life.

Through the definition I gave earlier, it would be a bit of a stretch to say government should regulate diet. The food is beneficial to the person, the harm can be undone without them becoming burdens to society, etc.. And yes, you are arguing for the extreme - but opioid addiction is a common outcome of opioid use. Its not the extreme.

The small benefit of regulating diet doesn't justify the privacy and freedom invasion.

This might be a valid argument if only the most addictive and destructive drugs were banned. That's not the case in much of the world, though.

Well, those aren't the kinds of governments I'd make myself or want to live with!

So if anything, this policy of limiting the gaming of children and teenagers is logically consistent. They should go further and extend it to the adult population, AFAIC

I have been arguing mostly thinking about the US government. So again, the benefits of this would not outweigh the freedoms that would be trampled by this. You'd lose your privacy and freedom.

I'd say if someone can afford to just play games all day then go for it. They're winning at life.

[helios]

instead its a delicate balance between people's freedom and just blatant social harm.

Then you've destroyed the original premise:

The government makes certain drugs illegal - to keep productivity mainly. People get addicted to it then it becomes their whole life. Its not that they care about the people, which by that logic would mean they should regular food and such, but that they care about the productivity of the country.

An authoritarian totalitarian state can efficiently and effectively protect productivity by sacrificing people's freedoms. People don't necessarily need to be unhappy in such a system, either.
Why is it necessary to strike any sort of balance between social and personal good? Why not put social good above everything else at all costs?

Internal conflict hurts inside, causes confusion, makes people doubt themselves and not know what they really want. External conflict is one where you get to keep your integrity, you can know who you are, what you want, etc.

Again, more opinionated, but internal conflict, especially with drugs, is terrible.

I don't think you really understand how unhappiness, dissatisfaction, and frustration work. The source of the discrepancy between your desire and your actuality doesn't really matter, mentally.
And the harm of addiction is not in the conflict of being unable to stop the habit, but in the harm the habit itself causes.

makes no sense to allow people to have control over themselves

And who decides and how what does or doesn't make sense to allow?

For example, it makes sense to me for the government to ban smoking

I think it makes sense to ban abortions, since I could never want to have one.
I also want to ban whatever your favorite activity is. I think your happiness is a social ill.

Notice how you said lifestyle - it takes years and years to be able to do this to yourself.

Just how late do you think the onset of diabetes is?

While it would make sense for government to regulate diet in a way that someone could never live an unhealthy lifestyle - that would be an INVASIVE disturbance of privacy and freedom. A person can CHOOSE to live an unhealthy lifestyle because eating the burgers makes them happy. You can choose to live a "happier" yet shorter life.

Again we're on the topic of thresholds. At what point do my choices over my own body become someone else's business, and why?

And yes, you are arguing for the extreme - but opioid addiction is a common outcome of opioid use. Its not the extreme.

The topic of the opioid addiction epidemic is actually an interesting one. Opioid addiction is somewhat common among users (not just plainly common; but it's true that opioids are inherently addictive due to their effect on neurochemistry), but it's partly caused by drug control. In a black market, it makes economical sense to only move the absolutely most potent molecules by volume or mass. That's how in modern times you end up with carfentanyl on the street, which is so insanely potent it's practically poison.
In a white market there would be no incentive for such extreme optimization. On the other hand, distributors might optimize for the most addictive molecules even if they are less potent, as is the case with nicotine.

Well, those aren't the kinds of governments I'd make myself or want to live with!

Just about every western nation does not ban alcohol, which is addictive and extremely harmful (have you seen someone with alcohol withdrawal?), or tobacco, which is even more addictive and a carcinogen, but does either ban or severely regulate cannabinoids and hallucinogens, even though (with a few exceptions) they're among the safest and least addictive recreational drug classes.

[zapshe]

Have to rewrite after wrote my whole thing :/:

Then you've destroyed the original premise

Neat thing is that I haven't. The laws they try to push must abide by the balance of freedom and such, but they can have their own personal agenda.

Why not put social good above everything else at all costs?

These governments have been tried, they get overthrown. People have needs, society is supposed to make people's lives better - not worse.

And who decides and how what does or doesn't make sense to allow

Group of people who can be be wrong many times, but try to uphold the values.

I think it makes sense to ban abortions, since I could never want to have one.

Well, it wouldn't sit well with balancing between freedom and societal good. This is why I analyzed and showed banning something like smoking would be in a grey area, but leaning more towards letting people do what they want.

Just how late do you think the onset of diabetes is?

No idea LOL. Assume its different for everyone - occurring more frequently for those who are obese and older.

At what point do my choices over my own body become someone else's business, and why?

Its less about defining it in this debate but showing that the line may be arbitrary at certain parts but is being upheld, or people try to uphold it.

In a white market there would be no incentive for such extreme optimization

Sure there would be. Someone makes their stuff more addicting so that people go to them for more instead of other vendors. Would this require government regulation?

Just about every western nation does not ban alcohol, which is addictive and extremely harmful

In high doses. "Social drinking", just being responsible when you drink, is completely fine. Addiction in drinking happens because people mentally get addicted, there's no real physical addiction.

Because people are irresponsible, there are plenty of laws regulating drinking. Its not banned, but highly regulated. Can't drive under the influence, some places won't let you simply BE THERE if you're drunk, etc.. Bartenders can just refuse to serve you if they think you've had to much.

[JRManx]

Wow...and all I asked was what you think about the CCP regulating video games...

[zapshe]

Me and Helios have a bond stronger than Chinese parents have with their sons.

[JRManx]

Woah!

[helios]

Actually alcohol addiction can have a chemical component. It can be life-threatening to quit alcohol cold turkey under certain conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome
And while alcohol is somewhat regulated, there are no laws forbidding you from stockpiling alcohol and literally drinking yourself to death at home.

Wow...and all I asked was what you think about the CCP regulating video games...

I think it's swell. Every time I hear about China passing a new law to restrict the freedoms of its citizens it makes me wish I could fast-forward a hundred years to see what it will look like then.

Me and Helios have a bond stronger than Chinese parents have with their sons.

Don't ask about the missing unborn (maybe unborn. It's unknown) Chinese daughters, though. Lawl. An unexpected side-effect of the one-child law.

(I'm not a big fan of China or its culture. I'm not sure if it comes through.)

EDIT: Minor correction.

[zapshe]

And while alcohol is somewhat regulated, there are no laws forbidding you from stockpiling alcohol and literally drinking yourself to death at home.

That would be suicide - so technically there is a law against this.

I'm not a big fan of China or its culture. I'm not sure if it comes through.

China is something else, could never live there. Don't even want to visit.

[seeplus]

In the UK suicide is not unlawful - although assisted suicide is.

[Ganado]

adds fuel to fire

China has more freedom than Australia.

https://twitter.com/SirajAHashmi/status/1433462798512709636
https://twitter.com/aginnt/status/1439340220902637570
https://twitter.com/TheJuggernaut88/status/1441303796307546112
https://twitter.com/OzraeliAvi/status/1440197875049242634

[jonnin]

China has more freedom than Australia.

degrees of police state. Most of the world lives under harsh restrictions and repressive government.
Just here in the USA, compared to the state that I live in to the most restrictive is like the difference in going to a foreign country in terms of increased taxes, lack of freedoms (esp gun restrictions which range from near zero to all but banned from state to state), cost of living, militarized police forces, forced compliance (neighborhood associations!.. building permits?!.. burn permits?!... rolling blackouts?!... forced vehicle add-ons... ).

Its for the children. Or something.
I define a police state as a place where the police are better armed than the subjects. Because as soon as that happens, other restrictions get piled on at an accelerating pace. Aussie is a great example of this.. in my lifetime I have watched it go from relatively free to total lockdown.

[helios]

LOL. Australia is such an interesting case.

[JRManx]

helios wrote:

Every time I hear about China passing a new law to restrict the freedoms of its citizens it makes me wish I could fast-forward a hundred years to see what it will look like then.

Read 1984.

Australia is a nut case. You get hit with $1000 fines if you just go out to get the newspaper, or something like that. Crazy stuff.

Homeowners associations in places like California are really something else. My uncle lives there, and his HOA banned not mowing your grass, pulling weeds, and general upkeep of your front yard. He said that they even pay some dude to walk around the block and inspect everyone's yards to make sure they comply. If they don't pass, apparently they get hit with fines (not sure how much). Sh*t's getting weird these days. I remember growing up in North Idaho, where everyone had a few junk cars in their yard, weeds everywhere, and rusty metal and scrap heaps lying around. The times they are a-changin...

[zapshe]

Easy fix, kill everyone.