Krzysztof Jurewicz is a user on capitalism.party. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

Had an interesting talk with a friend yesterday about drug legality. Stuff like weed is easy, practically zero moral issue there, legalize the fuck out of it and only good will follow of it.
What about stuff like heroin though? It is highly addictive, not really a pleasurable way to unwind, has devastating effects on people who use it and overall has little if any positives.
Obviously self destruction is a right we've already given people, anyway so it seems like that's not an argument really.

Tobacco is perfectly legal, even if proven to be a major factor in cancer. Alcohol is legal, even if detrimental in health perspective and with alcoholics facing basically the same social issues as heroin addicts, although the stigma around it is somehow smaller.
So as far as legalization of use would decriminalize addicts, who in all fairness should really not be treated as criminals, but as people with a problem, it still requires some form of regulation.

I see this as a weird problem with libertarianism as a whole. Free markets are a great concept, but total lack of regulation won't cut it. Substances are a perfect example, as they can have dramatic effects if done wrong
Relying on a free market for drugs to self regulate will literally cost people's lives. A cheap drug will always sell more, but a cheap drug is more likely to give you less high and fuck you up more. Hence you can use price as a mechanism to literally kill people.

Krzysztof Jurewicz @KrzysiekJ

@kunev If we compare drugs to self-destruction, then we shouldn’t expect that legalising them will not cause any deaths. It is important however (as in other free market areas) that customers are not cheated, for example about the ingredients or side effects. A cheap drug can, from a coarse perspective, be compared to cheap food, which also can have hazardous health effects.

Β· 0 Β· 1

@KrzysiekJ yes. But my idea was more in terms of can you really expect a truly free market to completely self regulate, without (semi-)external forces that install some forms of standardization. Mostly I think to the point where you have an authority that at least certifies certain things are ok, and others you take with the knowledge they are more likely to kill you. But you get to an authority either way. You might not call it a state, but it essentially acts like one.

@kunev How about decentralized, privately owned certification institutions? Producers will pay for being evaluated and the organizations will need to maintain their certificates trustworthy. If they fail, certificates will have little value to consumers and it will not be profitable to pay for being evaluated. It doesn’t act as a state, as there are only voluntary actions involved.

Of course if some producer cheats, you will still be able to sue him in a traditional way.