alt Hacker News>A flawed argument doesn’t mean the position is incorrect, only that the person making the argument failed.
But let's skip the generic/philosophical pedantry and stick to the discussion at hand? I mean, I already argued against the position, which implies I consider it incorrect. So a failed argument doesn't do anything to convince me, on the contrary...
>I never said hard drugs were good for you, just that being poison alone does not inherently warrant anything past a warning label.
Inherently maybe no. Practically? Given the outcomes we want to see practically, and also from the moral standpoint of what's "good" i.g. regarding things a society should encourage vs discourage?
> And again that 100k number you want to use isn’t limited to hard drugs.
It includes what else, weed overdoses?
> It includes what else, weed overdoses?
People intentionally committing suicide is one of the big issues, but also people who die from any drug from Tylenol to prescription drugs.
That 75k includes accidental poisoning from drain cleaner etc and OD on hard drugs but excluded cases believed to be suicide.
> Given the outcomes we want to see practically, and also from the moral standpoint of what's "good" i.g. regarding things a society should encourage vs discourage?
Given those things are important you need to look at strategies that actually work, clearly the US fails here by an almost comical degree.
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/...
And not being pedantic that’s an actual argument you can attack on the merits of that argument. Such as using rates rather than absolute numbers when America is such a large country and adjusting for age related risks etc.