> Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall?
It isn't inherent to the substance that people were exploited. Labor laws cover that. You are using arguments that equally apply to sweatshops. No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops.
> I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks?
If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them. For the most part, you can't really protect adults from their own choices. It isn't practical [or frankly] possible. They just become criminals as prohibition has shown. Criminals who only break the law in regards to themselves are going to do it anyway. You can't magically protect people from risk when its clear people will do it regardless of the legality.
Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky. We aren't talking about some guy in China sneaking a harmful substance into baby formula.
> Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?
That is kind of my point. Situations like you describe are solved best by other solutions. [e.g. Welfare so people aren't that level of desperate]
>No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops.
But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those.
>If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them.
What does turn 18 (or what ever age you set adulthood to) magically remove the need of informed consent?
>Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky.
At least in the US, growing up the risks of drugs were vastly blown out of proportion (as was the risks of premarital sex). If those who told you that K was dangerous cried wolf on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, why would you believe them about K?
> But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those.
But once again, you are outlawing the labor practices of sweatshops. It is not inherent to a substance prohibition and is a different class of law.
Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know?
You just keep trying to somehow link problems that are already solved in other ways that are as least as effective [if not more so] with the good itself. That isn't how it works. You aren't magically going to have the power to identify "Shoe X" as from a sweatshop without also recognizing the fact that "Shoe X" was produced by "Group Y" which is a sweatshop.
You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good.
> What does turn 18 (or what ever age you set adulthood to) magically remove the need of informed consent?
Informed consent is the adorable assumption that information is always going to be equal. It isn't. We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time. How is that any different?
You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust.
You cannot somehow magically force adults to be responsible members of the population. You can only say "Hey, we aren't going to fuck you over and we will provide tons of free research about whether or not X is good or bad for you via institutions like the NIH and CDC."
> At least in the US, growing up the risks of drugs were vastly blown out of proportion (as was the risks of premarital sex). If those who told you that K was dangerous cried wolf on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, why would you believe them about K?
Once again, how is that different than literally any other behavior that contains risk? You are aware the same could be applied to a wide array of medication you are prescribed, the tobacco people still smoke, etc?
There isn't some magical solution to the fact human beings have agendas. You can only write laws requiring research into these things, to make the information publicly available for free, and so forth. You can't somehow outlaw personal agendas that cause certain groups of people to behave irrationally in a democratic system.
-------
Look, if you have an actual solution to the fact human beings have agendas [and can express those agendas via voting for people that will cater to their desire for an overblown reaction to Moral Risk X], by all means provide it. However, literally no human being of significant intellectual prowess has ever succeeded in the endeavor in the real world. This should tell you that you are either the founder of a new political movement that will solve a fundamental problem with democracy....or that you are simply wrong.
You have to let people think for themselves and have faith they realize they need to learn things on their own.
None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].
>Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know?
Sometimes you only have jurisdiction over the point of sales.
>You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good.
If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.
>We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time.
Considering many are too poor to afford a lawyer... I don't see it as a major difference. I actually see the contract law in much of the modern day world as allowing for the exploitation of the lower class and less informed.
>You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust.
Once again, why can't we just say 'you are a person, you have the...'? What is magical about being an adult that suddenly makes taking advantage of someones lack of resources and information acceptable (if not admirable)?
>None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].
What if I think that freedom should happen at 13 instead of 18? Or 23 instead of 18? Or when you can past this comprehensive test instead of 18?
> If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.
We are talking about domestic law. Once again, you go from "apples" to "oranges".
The fact you can't stay in the context of domestic law causes me to say f it, honestly.
This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.
What is the argument you are attempting to make? Let's start there and see where we can go, yes?
>This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.
Except it doesn't, so stop making statements to try to sideline the actual argument.
>What is the argument you are attempting to make?
That people who say they do not support prohibition because it doesn't work are being dishonest about their reasoning because in reality they do support prohibition of some materials/goods/services/items/ect. even when such prohibition doesn't work.
My second and lesser point is that people determine their support of prohibiting something based on both an effectiveness and their subjective moral feelings about the subject being prohibited.
You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?
As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.
>You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?
I actually didn't reply to your other comment because you basically said your arguments fail as soon as goods start crossing borders. Considering that for almost everything having been discussed (goods made by slaves, goods made by abusing non-consenting individuals, and most definitely drugs) involves crossing borders. The original article is even about a substance that is crossing legal borders.
>As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.
It is pretty clear your arguments fail as soon as goods crossing borders were taken into account. As such, your arguments have no place in discussing prohibition in reality except for services that don't cross borders at all.
It isn't inherent to the substance that people were exploited. Labor laws cover that. You are using arguments that equally apply to sweatshops. No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops.
> I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks?
If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them. For the most part, you can't really protect adults from their own choices. It isn't practical [or frankly] possible. They just become criminals as prohibition has shown. Criminals who only break the law in regards to themselves are going to do it anyway. You can't magically protect people from risk when its clear people will do it regardless of the legality.
Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky. We aren't talking about some guy in China sneaking a harmful substance into baby formula.
> Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?
That is kind of my point. Situations like you describe are solved best by other solutions. [e.g. Welfare so people aren't that level of desperate]