undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjstanley7y ago0 comments

If there's a willing buyer, and a willing seller, and the goods aren't stolen, and the seller isn't lying about what the goods are, then who is the victim?

If there's no victim, there's no crime.

(And, yes, identical logic does apply equally to illegal drugs).

0 comments

8 comments · 5 top-level

buzer7y ago· 2 in thread

It depends. Most (all?) antibiotics aren't sold without recipe. If they were and people started using them without good reason, we could end up in situation where there are no longer any effective antibiotics for the species (this is already the case to some degree, but accelerating it certainly isn't ideal).

AnthonyMouse7y ago

When something has negative externalities, the answer isn't to ban it, it's to tax it in proportion to the pro rata share of the negative externalities (and then maybe waive the tax if you have a prescription; but maybe not -- they seem to be overprescribed as it is, and the negative externalities don't disappear when you have a prescription).

If you want to pay $2000 for useless antibiotics, no problem. But the price will deter enough people that we don't get the scale required for widespread negative consequences, especially when insurance companies won't cover it without a prescription. Then the money can go to subsidize medicine in general so there is no net consequence for overall medical costs or insurance premiums.

And we could do the same thing for heroin with the money going to drug treatment etc. and do without all this business of SWAT teams and drug cartels.

munin7y ago

Cigarettes are legal and people still smuggle and sell them on the black market to avoid paying taxes. Your scheme would be mostly indistinguishable from the current prohibition and would still be dominated by cartels and SWAT teams.

2 more replies

Latteland7y ago· 1 in thread

But the law doesn't work that way, what's technically illegal is illegal. Prostitution and illegal drug use are two things in that camp.

jstanleyOP7y ago

Right, but the question was about why it should be illegal, not why it is illegal.

Waterluvian7y ago

Oh okay I understand that perspective. Thanks.

Brockenstein7y ago

> then who is the victim?

A lot of the times the drugs being sold are painkillers, opioids and such. And this doesn't happen in a vacuum where no one else is harmed. Alcohol is legal, and there's lots of victims involving its use. We're just willing to tolerate it and we tried prohibition and it didn't work. And then some yahoos decided to try Prohibition II, like drugs are really different when alcohol is a drug itself.

The whole reason drugs are illegal is because of all the social ills having 20% of the population addicted to drugs in the late 19th century caused. And it's all been knee-jerk reactions and staying the course no matter how insane or counter-productive the results are ever since.

rustcharm7y ago

And assuming insurance didn't pay for the pills (this would fall under the category of "stolen" or at least "misappropriated")

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse