Users of Krokodil are highly likely to die as the result of their use, often within a year of starting (a few have made it as long as five, although this is very rare), and the few addicts who make it into rehab face around a month of severe withdrawal symptoms; the pain is so horrific that people frequently need to be put in an induced coma.
If you knew someone was going to try krokodil, would you stop them?
Would you support a law to stop them?
I feel like the schizophrenic opinions that arise around paternalism here owe to claims that it is politics. I think that’s a bit of a cop-out personally.
Given that smoking costs the legitimate decision makers more (’bad for the economy″) and hurts the population (‘bad for society’), is that sufficient reason to intervene in the market?
Why even think through such things! We ought we pander to those who don’t understand these issues and keep away, since if we didn’t understand them intervention in the market sounds pretty scary?
That question presupposes a flawed way of thinking about making laws. Laws have many effects and shouldn’t be judged on the effect they have on a single case.
In addition most of us aren’t faced with consequential decisions about individual laws so it’s hot a stronlgy meaningful issue.
The issue of 2) Everybody should be vegan. is one that I listed as an example of a meaningful issue because it drives choices I make in my life. It’s meaningful because I can point to the effect it has on my life to think differently about the issue.
The questions that you posed don’t fall into that class.
Wiki says that desomorphine has been a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the US since 1936, shortly after its discovery. Mere possession is illegal, much less use.
So this example is to illustrate something we disagree about, not what society agrees about it generally. See christians comment demonstrating this point...
If you knew someone was going to try krokodil, would you stop them?
I’d likely try to talk them out of it, and certainly wouldn’t support them during their extended suicide.
Would you support a law to stop them?
I support laws to make it easy to avoid, and support for the induced coma while getting clean. I wouldn’t incarcerate anyone for their choice of self-destruction. I’d probably support charges of attempted murder for giving it to someone without explicit written consent.
Paternalism.
-Krokodil on rationalwiki
If you knew someone was going to try krokodil, would you stop them?
Would you support a law to stop them?
I feel like the schizophrenic opinions that arise around paternalism here owe to claims that it is politics. I think that’s a bit of a cop-out personally.
Second level consequentialism
Does smoking cost as much as it makes for the Treasury?. Just one of many high quality articles on full fact. What, if anything, can they do better?
Given that smoking costs the legitimate decision makers more (’bad for the economy″) and hurts the population (‘bad for society’), is that sufficient reason to intervene in the market?
Why even think through such things! We ought we pander to those who don’t understand these issues and keep away, since if we didn’t understand them intervention in the market sounds pretty scary?
That question presupposes a flawed way of thinking about making laws. Laws have many effects and shouldn’t be judged on the effect they have on a single case.
In addition most of us aren’t faced with consequential decisions about individual laws so it’s hot a stronlgy meaningful issue.
Just because you don’t have strong private incentives for public or group issues doesn’t make it not meaningful
It’s not about the incentives. It’s mostly that most people here don’t care about the issue enough to effect the legislative process.
What testable reason(s) do you have to believe that and would would change your mind about it?
The basic test would be to ask people what they actually would do differently when they would hold different beliefs.
what would you actually do differently when you hold different beliefs?
If I would believe that everybody should eat vegan I would eat a different diet.
I am so confused right now.
The issue of
2) Everybody should be vegan.is one that I listed as an example of a meaningful issue because it drives choices I make in my life. It’s meaningful because I can point to the effect it has on my life to think differently about the issue.The questions that you posed don’t fall into that class.
Wiki says that desomorphine has been a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the US since 1936, shortly after its discovery. Mere possession is illegal, much less use.
So this example is to illustrate something we disagree about, not what society agrees about it generally. See christians comment demonstrating this point...
I’d likely try to talk them out of it, and certainly wouldn’t support them during their extended suicide.
I support laws to make it easy to avoid, and support for the induced coma while getting clean. I wouldn’t incarcerate anyone for their choice of self-destruction. I’d probably support charges of attempted murder for giving it to someone without explicit written consent.