You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

James_Miller comments on LINK: An example of the Pink Flamingo, the obvious-yet-overlooked cousin of the Black Swan - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: polymathwannabe 05 November 2015 04:55PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (75)

CC Licenced

Comments (75)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: James_Miller 07 November 2015 03:19:13AM 2 points [-]

You are straw-manning. The war on drugs almost certainly reduces drug consumption and has almost certainly stopped lots of people from having their lives ruined by drugs.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 November 2015 03:44:39AM 0 points [-]

I'm strawmanning whom?

Notice that I'm actually objecting to polymathwannabe's claim that the War on Drugs is "pointless".

Comment author: James_Miller 07 November 2015 05:25:32AM 1 point [-]

I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that you were strawmanning the social benefits of the war on drugs.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 November 2015 05:54:16AM * 3 points [-]

I consider these benefits to be much lesser than the costs. But, as I pointed out, it depends on the point of view. It's an ill wind...

Comment author: polymathwannabe 07 November 2015 05:37:32AM 0 points [-]

I thought he was being sarcastic. But my sarcasm meter is terribly miscalibrated.

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist comment score below threshold [+] (12 children)

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 07 November 2015 04:47:56PM 1 point [-]

I think it increases consumption if anything by making it cooler. It's hard to imagine anyone would do coke if it wasn't illegal and cool because of it's legal status.

Well, back when it used to be legal a lot of people did do it. Also, it caused so many problems that a movement started to ban it.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 November 2015 05:02:05PM 1 point [-]

Also, it caused so many problems that a movement started to ban it.

That's a fully general argument against most everything under the sun.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 08 November 2015 10:37:59AM -1 points [-]

[cocaine] caused so many problems

Like what?

Comment author: James_Miller 07 November 2015 04:09:50PM 1 point [-]

I think that whatever we do with drugs, lots and lots of people are going to suffer. I'm not claiming that on net that the drug war is good, just that it almost certainly stops many people from getting addicted to drugs. I would still favor legalization of most drugs, but I admit enacting this position will have significant (although probably not net) costs. The fact that most Americans support keeping lots of drugs illegal probably shows that most Americans recognize that legalizing all drugs would push up drug consumption and create more wasted lives and more collateral damage from drug users.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 November 2015 05:01:23PM 0 points [-]

TANSTAAFL does not imply the fallacy of the grey.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 07 November 2015 05:06:50PM * 0 points [-]

On the other hand the people pushing for drug legalization like to pretend that the costs don't exist.

For example SanguineEmpiricist was claiming up thread that no one would use cocaine if it wasn't illegal.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 November 2015 05:08:33PM 1 point [-]

People pushing for the continuation of the war on drugs like the pretend the costs don't exist, too.

It's a very pervasive attitude :-/

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 08 November 2015 12:18:34AM 0 points [-]

You are right in your sentiments in this thread.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 08 November 2015 10:46:00AM * 0 points [-]

On the other hand some people pushing for drug legalization like to pretend that the costs don't exist.

FTFY.

But that's a pretty general phenomenon, by no means specific to the legalization of recreational drugs. Just because there exists some people who believe X for dumb reasons isn't terribly strong evidence against X, especially when counterbalanced by the fact that there also exist people who believe not-X for dumb reasons.

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 07 November 2015 10:28:48PM * -2 points [-]

I don't think I said that. Lol. Very few people would use it without the current stigma, do you know how I know? Because I do coke and most of the culture is influenced by its illegality by a significant degree. It would just reduce to a baseline number, and it's hard to imagine people destroying their lives due to cocaine if you're not living in a world of mythology.

Where's gwern when you need him?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 09 November 2015 03:04:50AM 1 point [-]

Because I do coke and most of the culture is influenced by its illegality by a significant degree.

I agree, coke culture would be different if it was legal. Doesn't mean people wouldn't use it, do you know how I know? Because it used to be legal and people did use it, a lot.

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 10 November 2015 07:56:30AM * -2 points [-]

I don't think it would return to its current status and would most certainly decrease. You're in the wrong forum to discuss this accurately, too many sheltered kids.

James_Miller comments on LINK: An example of the Pink Flamingo, the obvious-yet-overlooked cousin of the Black Swan - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (75)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (75)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login