Using drugs makes you stupid.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:58 pm

Making alcohol illegal did not instill good judgment. But making it legal didn't do that either.

All legalization did was cut the black market back 99% or better and along with it the criminal element that ran the black market. Which is all I expect from ending drug prohibition.

You will still have the same fools to deal with. No law can fix that. Ever.

No set of laws ever devised has ever reformed men. The only hope is that men will reform themselves. And that hope is very slim.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:07 pm

MSimon wrote:So what about prescribed Oxycontin? Does a doctor's signature change things? Or how about stimulants as strong as the banned ones prescribed to children? What makes the doctor's signature equivalent to a pass?

And how about all the "do not use while operating heavy machinery" drugs? Do people really follow those injunctions? Not much.

To a certain extent, he covers the "oxycontin" with his "The same is true for current medically prescribed drugs, and so any other drugs should be handled with at least that degree of caution".

MSimon wrote:You will still have the same fools to deal with. No law can fix that. Ever.

No set of laws ever devised has ever reformed men.

There is one method that hasn't been tried as far as I can tell, at least as far as social issues are concerned. The process is used throughout the US for business issues. The process is "default contract". In business, the courts basically say that in the absence of specific written contract to the contrary the contract in effect is the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC was written to correct the difficiencies of "Common Law" which changed in detail from juresdiction to juresdiction. However, UCC is NOT "Law", it is default contract. You can do things differently if you so choose.

I suspect default social contract, a "Uniform Social Code" so to speak, would work about as well. Again, it would not be "Law" but default contract. Getting specific agreement to the contrary with respect to being under the influence in public would almost surely will be extremely difficult in anything except small, closed communities. But such communities would be able to make their own community code, within limitations.

If someone violated the contract, they would be taken to court and the court could levy fines etc for such violations. It could also estop the activity completely if the violation were severe enough. (If someone were regularly stoned in public, he might be barred from getting stoned anymore, since he can't be trusted to keep it to himself.) Thereafter, if another violation occured, the person could be appropriately punished for failure to follow a court order.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:22 am

I'm of the opinion that social relations self organize in the same way markets do. A minimum of law will do the trick.

I try for a modicum of consistency but I do not feel totally bound by it. Goedel.

I do not believe top down works any better in social relations that it does in economic relations.

Which is why I'm so amused at the current situation.

Half the polity believes in top down in economics. The other half believes in top down in social relations. And then there is the tiny sliver like me who believe in neither.

The funniest part is that each side (half) sees the error of the other side but not their own. As my friend Veeshir likes to say: "Funniest End Of Civilization Ever."

I was once discussing the economics of the drug war with a "liberal". The analysis would have made Milton Friedman proud. Then I said why not apply that sort of thinking to other markets. The crickets were louder than his response.

Faith makes people stupid. And yet people would rather be stupid than question their faith.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:25 am

If someone were regularly stoned in public, he might be barred from getting stoned anymore, since he can't be trusted to keep it to himself.

Excepting alcohol and a very few other drugs it is rather difficult to discern "stonedness". Which is why we have drug testing and not ordinary field sobriety tests.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:48 pm

MSimon wrote:
If someone were regularly stoned in public, he might be barred from getting stoned anymore, since he can't be trusted to keep it to himself.
Excepting alcohol and a very few other drugs it is rather difficult to discern "stonedness". Which is why we have drug testing and not ordinary field sobriety tests.

Nobody ever said this would be utopia, just a more workable system.

You wrote "I'm of the opinion that social relations self organize in the same way markets do. A minimum of law will do the trick". Thi is my point precisely. What worked well with business is a unified default contract called the Uniform Commercial Code. It is NOT law. You don't HAVE to do it that way. But if you DON'T make a specific contract, it is the one the courts will apply.

I believe that the same philosophy would be beneficial for social interactions too.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:59 am

Kiteman,

The UCC was designed to make business easy across the nation.

Social relations tend to be more local. I think outlawing crime in social relations is about the best you can do. And we already have the criminal law available for that.