zlacker

While you might argue which drug is dangerous and which isn't, ban on drugs is not arbitrary decision. You can't do whatever you want with your body, because you might loose control and hurt others. Drug abuse affects others as well (financially, mentally, physically...). I am victim of someone's drug abuse. I never took any drugs. So if you are looking for victims of drug abuse, here I am.

>>mirpa+(OP)
Some of the decisions were rather arbitrary at best, and racist at worst, though. The sentence disparities regarding, for example, cocaine depending on how you are using it was designed to punish black people more harshly. Opium bans had as much to do with anti-Chinese sentiment than anything.

I'm not arguing that drugs should be legal, but we do have to be clear that the reasons for banning them and the punishment are not necessarily rational.

>>mirpa+(OP)
Then why the distinction with alcohol though?

>>jeffhu+H3
Alcohol is in fact heavily regulated and controlled in most countries, and we have cultural practices in place that largely manage the risks for the vast majority of people that consume it.

Personally I'm in favour of further narcotics legalisation, but with regulation to manage it's social effects and taxation to fund the expensive mitigation measures it would require.

>>mirpa+(OP)
> You can't do whatever you want with your body, because you might loose control and hurt others.

Why is it legal to drive a car, then?

>>oneeye+1d
It is legal if you're in good shape and therefore the risk of that happening is minimal. It is illegal to drive a car under an altered state that makes it more likely to happen. It is a balance between the benefits of permitting something and the likelihood of something bad happens. In normal conditions, the benefits are believed to outweigh the risks, so it is generally permitted to drive a car. But it is not permitted to drive it if you're under the effect of some substance that can alter your perception of reality.

>>GTP+8e
OK, that's fair. So I agree that:

> You can't do whatever you want with your body

is pretty reasonable, but how about we rephrase it as something like:

> You can't do something with your body that significantly increases the risk of harming others

?

>>tallan+D1
That’s pure historical revision. The sentencing difference was created in 1986 based on the belief that it was more addictive. It wasn’t until a decade later that research showed the causation had been reversed (more addicted people were more likely to use crack). If you look at the timing, there was a huge increase in drug crime that occurred as a result of the crack epidemic: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct18/lingering-lethal-toll-amer....

The recent change in policy simply reflects the prevailing trend of reducing disparities in sentencing for criminals while increasing disparities in crime victimization by failing to enforce the law.

>>oneeye+bf
Yes, I would agree with this principle, with the caveat that there could be always be corner cases that deserve a special treatment.

>>oneeye+1d
Honestly, if cars were only invented in the last few years, it probably wouldn't be legal without extensive training and licensing