Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM
—” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory
If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.
If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons.
Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs.
If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem.
If not then it is.
In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so.
This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question.
The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property.
That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor.
This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains.
Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.