Sondersendung: Radiophilosophie #065 – KRIEGSDROGE.

4 Antworten

1. Permitting all drug taking would have some advantages. It would greatly reduce the price of (non medical) drugs, and thus reduce crime committed by addicts (and dealers). It would help human evolution towards people with less tendency to take drugs. States could benefit from a reasonable tax on drugs.
   Drugs would still be banned for sportsmen. They would terminate their careers if caught taking drugs that are generally permitted.
   Some societies and even whole nations would sink into extreme poverty, losing almost all will to work. Unless all of mankind ended up like that, groups resistant to the lure of drugs would eventually take over.
   Women would lose out, as the men would hog the drugs, leaving the women to do the work. (I understand that Yemen is rather like that).

2. Lieber Chris,

   ich mag Ihre Gedankenexperimente zur Zukunft der Drogenfreigabe.

   Aber mittlerweile wissen wir ja durch einige Blogbeiträge, dass die Planung (die ja immer auch einige Zukunftsannahmen beeinhaltet), ihre Unschuld verloren hat.

   Also einfacher – ausprobieren.

   Drogen freigeben:

   Wird es besser (weniger Tote) – dabeibleiben.

   Bleibt es gleich – abwägen.
   (Opiumverdienste der Bauern vs Unerträglichkeit einer drogenverseuchten Kultur – warum kommen wir eigentlich mit einer alkohohlverseuchten Kultur nach diversen Prohibitionen so gut zurecht?)

   Wird es schlechter (Kriterium?) – wieder einführen.

3. Dear Detlev,
   Your proposal is also a plan, and it is easy to see its flaw. You propose to give the idea up if it does not work. But if it does not work, it probably will not be possible to give it up. It reminds me of a couplet from a rugby song called „The Engineer“:- „Now we come to the tragic bit; there was no way of stopping it“.

4. Okay, I change my mind. No trial and error. Only trial.