I'd rather have my heroin addicted son do it at home, where I can be there to take him to the hospital, talk to him about it, etc., rather than make him go out into the streets alone. Banning it doesn't seem like a productive approach
We aren't concerned only about existing addicts, but potential future addicts. Especially for something like social media with strong network effects, where decreasing use is non-linear.
The question is always:
A. What do people use instead? (banning pot, for example, increases use of heroin and alcohol, which is good for alcohol companies but bad for public health. If banning social media sent kids to 24/7 news channels, it might not help, but I haven't seen evidence of that.)
B. How much is organized crime funded by the increased black market? (In this case, kids are a limited population that doesn't have a lot of money, so the answer is probably "not much".)
Banning substances naturally decreases use, that's obvious, but prohibition criminalizes use, which will always persist. You cannot stop drug use. Drug legalization so far has resulted in declining use of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol. Far more young people today choose smoking pot over smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Many people choose not to drink because they've observed the widespread dangerous effects of it since it's been legal. If heroin was made legal all over the world today, you'd 100% see increased use. But maybe humanity needs to see the consequences in order to respect them? Just like alcohol and cigarettes?
> I can be there to take him to the hospital, talk to him about it, etc.
Nanny state! Let him take himself to medical facilities, and deal with the consequences himself instead of interfering
HELL Let's ban hospitals, they're just interfering in the natural order of life.
Real talk: I know that those are strawmen and you most definitely think that where you draw the line is right for you and your family (assuming that you have one), but the reality is that the line gets moved a LOT as children grow - your line might be great if you have developed a good relationship with your son, and he's received a good social education from his friends/network and he's over a certain age.
It fails very quickly if he's, say, 5 years old and/or he's had no friends that model good/bad behaviour and/or you and he are human meaning that communication, interpretation, and any hint of resentment lies underneath (keep in mind that teenagers are geared to fight/be angry/dislike their parents, for the specific reason that it motivates them to leave home and begin their own lives)
I like your libertarian approach. You're right the line can move a lot. Of course, my support/interference would (hypothetically speaking) be different on a situation to situation basis, my reasoning is simply love. If I love someone, like my son, I want them to be free to make mistakes and hurt themselves, and certainly if they start hurting others I would seek to stop that. I think it's important, though, to be there for people, nut the line does change like you pointed out. So I'm really not sure- my decisions would be situationally dependent. I'm still inclined to say that prohibition is ineffective and potentially more dangerous for some people
roguecoder|2 months ago
Banning substances dramatically decreases use: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00414-015-1184-4 and legalized opioids dramatically increased heroin use: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15360288.2015.10... Access matters.
The question is always: A. What do people use instead? (banning pot, for example, increases use of heroin and alcohol, which is good for alcohol companies but bad for public health. If banning social media sent kids to 24/7 news channels, it might not help, but I haven't seen evidence of that.) B. How much is organized crime funded by the increased black market? (In this case, kids are a limited population that doesn't have a lot of money, so the answer is probably "not much".)
Extropy_|2 months ago
awesome_dude|2 months ago
Nanny state! Let him take himself to medical facilities, and deal with the consequences himself instead of interfering
HELL Let's ban hospitals, they're just interfering in the natural order of life.
Real talk: I know that those are strawmen and you most definitely think that where you draw the line is right for you and your family (assuming that you have one), but the reality is that the line gets moved a LOT as children grow - your line might be great if you have developed a good relationship with your son, and he's received a good social education from his friends/network and he's over a certain age.
It fails very quickly if he's, say, 5 years old and/or he's had no friends that model good/bad behaviour and/or you and he are human meaning that communication, interpretation, and any hint of resentment lies underneath (keep in mind that teenagers are geared to fight/be angry/dislike their parents, for the specific reason that it motivates them to leave home and begin their own lives)
Extropy_|2 months ago