Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

For instance, one person can be anti-legalization, and another pro-legalization, and have an argument without realizing that they are both against prison sentences for non-violent crimes against the self. Also, for one person legalization might mean that every substance is openly available, whereas for another it might mean openly available in a highly regulated form, whereas for another it might mean that you have to have a license to ingest, or even an approach like Portugal's where you can still be apprehended(!) and made to appear before a panel even though it's without risk of a prison sentence.

I also think there's a lack of respect for our own proven cognitive biases, and our interconnected societies. I know several medical social workers that have first-hand experience with the negative impact that drug users have on our communities even if the users are technically only ingesting products into their own bodies, aren't dealing, and aren't negatively impacting immediate family members. People might think they are making responsible independent choices when they put some of these substances into their bodies, but that doesn't mean they're always correct - and the burden of these choices can then be put on the shoulders of larger society.

Yes, I was also sure this site was populated exclusively with ferrari-tweaking experts. I'm a little shocked, too, but there it is. ;)

I agree that the last comment was overly snooty (I think it was in response to the implied snootiness of the original comment, but snootiness does not justify more snootiness).

That said, I think there's a bit of an indirection of the point when you go to celebrating "diversity of opinions". Yes, diversity of opinions is good, but there is a difference between "diversity" and "the space of all possibilities". Some opinions are just dumb, and having them doesn't improve the community.

More importantly, it is not merely the opinion that is being rejected - it is the attitude accompanying the opinion. If the original comment had been something along the lines of "I'm wary of trying psychoactive drugs because it seems like the brain is a very sensitive organ, and messing with its state could have subtle unintended consequences", then it would be expressing a very similar opinion, but the attitude would be completely different.

By the same token, if the original comment had said "You're wasting your life if you don't use psychoactives to broaden your horizons", then that would be a polar opposite opinion, expressed with a similarly unacceptable attitude.

I'm happy to see either of those opinions expressed on HN. But I'd happily do without either attitude.

Saying that is like saying "I'd never mess with Ruby-on-Rails; you can't do better than CGI and C."

At the same time, there can be positive externalities. Everyone knows what these are.

I would like to see more nuanced drug policy. Let's try to discourage the kind of drug use that leads to negative externalities, without discouraging the kind of drug use that can lead to positive ones. For example, treatment instead of imprisonment. If we take a lot of the resources that we spend on imprisoning drug users and spend it on treatment and honest drug use education, I think we'd see a lot more progress.

Of course, it's hard to come up with campaign slogans or appeal to emotions by making cogent, nuanced arguments. So I have little faith anyone will actually do this anytime soon.