Discussion If society adopted the same logic for not banning alcohol to RTD, then...

[TAW122]

I just stumbled upon a video talking about why alcohol (throughout human history) is not banned, and I just made the connection when it comes to the right to die and all the draconic, paternalistic CTB prevention measures and policies in place in present day. The video Why Is Alcohol Not Banned (The Answer is Surprisingly Simple), at the 6:01 mark states in a few sentences why despite many downsides of alcohol, it is not banned (not withstanding the prohibition era in the US, in the early 20th century when the US tried to ban it but only exacerbated further problems and to no avail). I've quoted what the video said below:

Why is alcohol not banned?

Because our biology craves it, our history shows that bans create gangsters, and our economies are too addicted to the revenue.

Then also,

We have decided, as a society, that the cost of keeping it legal is high... but the cost of banning it is even higher.

So how does this tie into pro-choice philosophy and stance? It ties into the fact that the right to die, bodily autonomy, and CTB itself is and has been taboo, stigmatized, and even prohibited (in the sense that there are social and civil consequences such as unwanted intervention and interference from the State, from our peers and other people and what not) despite the fact that in the modern world (late 20th century and even 21st century), in many jurisdictions it is not a crime, but de facto it is due to the intervention and consequences that arise from those planning to, attempting to (but failing to) CTB.

Therefore, the question becomes, what would happen if the same logic applied to alcohol was then also applied to CTB, where in an ideal world it wasn't prohibited, permitted (maybe not encouraged but not blanket disapproved either) by some, and also not interfered by the State, a third party(s), or anyone? In other words, if society instead of banning (or even strongly and aggressively opposing, intervening, impinging upon an individual's civil liberties) decided to permit it (albeit in some circumstances and not merely for the terminally ill), what would things be like?

I would think that the amounts of impulsive CTB attempts (whether failure or successes) would go down, people would be more inclined and willing to seek help if it is offered voluntarily instead of forced or mandated, and there would be less stigma. Perhaps, even those who may have otherwise desperately attempted to CTB may decide to hold on longer if they knew there was ZERO risk of intervention, temporary loss of liberty (for their own good as a result of unwanted intervention), or any negative consequence (not necessarily legal ones) that would come from it. Let me know your thoughts on it.

 

[Dejected 55]

It's simple really. The US tried prohibition, sort of, but even the people in government who voted to ban alcohol and other substances themselves partook and sometimes ran illegal alcohol operations during prohibition. It was a knee-jerk thing that was tried and failed. Bottom line is more people wanted alcohol than the people who didn't could police it out of them. Half or more of the country would have had to be locked up to support prohibition.... and that wasn't sustainable.

Notably, though, prohibition was about more than alcohol... only the alcohol came back... the government kept the ban on other substances and expanded it from there. As popular as many illicit drugs are, they aren't popular enough to override the ban... except maybe now with marijuana that corner has been turned and more people are in favor of it being legal.

Suicide, though... the banning of it doesn't stop it... much like alcohol wasn't stopped... but it's hard to argue people killing themselves is good for society and they are a small minority of people so it's much easier to ban that. We don't have to like it... but it's an uphill battle to make general suicide legal.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I fully expected part of lifting the ban to be about money and voila- there it is.

The problem with suicide is- it wouldn't be like lifting a prohibition in the first place. It might not be illegal now to suicide in most places but- we're not and never have been (in living memory) free to suicide. So- people don't view their right to die the same as their right to buy alcohol. It's probably not even something the majority thinks about that intensely- until life becomes shit enough for them to.

Plus- mass suicides wouldn't help the economy and I imagine that's mostly what our leaders care about. I came across a suicide prevention pack once that organisations present to the government to secure funding. At the very top was (predictably) how much our governments lose on average in tax etc. when a person takes their own life. If that doesn't illustrate where their priorities lie, I'm not sure what does!

Obviously- they do have to think practically though. An aging population, they probably can't afford for too many working age people to off themselves.

I do agree with you though in many ways. I think bringing in a regulated assisted suicide programme could actually have the reverse effect of saving some lives! It would bring the possibility of suicide to the forefront. People talking about their problems earlier may mean they get support before they become overwhelming. Even those applying for assisted suicide would presumably be interviewed. That could be the first time they've sat down and talked to someone. They could potentially be helped even at that point towards living rather than dying.

So- like you say- keeping it all taboo and in the shaddows doesn't do anyone any favours- I think. Same as alcohol really. Those who are desperate to do it will find a way.

 

[Dejected 55]

I think there's also a difference between forbidding and just not preventing. There are lots of things that are legal but not encouraged. Smoking cigarettes is still fully legal but hardly endorsed by anyone at all. And, note, smoking of traditional cigarettes has dropped to almost nil (at least here in the US) in my lifetime. As a kid there were ashtrays everywhere in public, vending machines for cigarettes everywhere, lots of advertisements all over the place, and more people smoking than you could shake a stick at! Now... I can go ages without running across anyone smoking in real life. I can't say which thing worked to cut into the number of smokers... lots of different things were thrown at the problem... but it wasn't outlawed or made illegal.

I think people just were soft-convinced that there were better, often cheaper, things to find pleasure in that were less physically harmful to them.

 

[TAW122]

@Dejected 55 Good points and yeah I would think that because CTB is a very small minority of people (the ones that actually go through it successfully), yes it seems like it's harder to argue it's utility at least from the mainstream's perspective. I would think perhaps in a society, perhaps in the near (but not immediate) future, be it several years or even a decade from now, so like 2030's or even early 2040's where quality of life and the way things are going aren't well and that some could argue that quality of life cannot be further improved (society can only improve so much and the amount of resources to better things are not infinite, but rather finite), so it would make sense from a moral and financial point of view to ease suffering. The moral part being quality of life and financial point is that no matter how much we try, there will always be a shortage or that it isn't feasible or probable to have the means to improve things (assuming it is even possible to begin with) to such a degree that people will just naturally not wish to CTB.

As for the smoking example, yeah I noticed that as well even as someone in his mid 30's, I see a lot of smokers in the 1990's or even early 2000's, then it started to fade away after smoking distance regulations (25 ft, 50 ft, then in some facilities and places, outright banned). I too, rarely see people smoke, depending on the place, but certainly like out of every 100-200 people maybe 1-2 people, but it depends.

@Forever Sleep Great post and yes, I think there was a statistic or figure that stated it cost the government like $1M USD (or whatever large amount) per person who successfully CTB'd. Yes, even the loosening of the current paternalistic policies and means of CTB prevention will be a big step in the right direction. As the Redditor EG (Existentialgoof) cornerstone argument is that he always vouched for the curtailing of the State (and other third parties, authorities) power to interfere or impinge on personal liberties when it comes to act of CTB itself along with the reframing of the act of CTB being the act of a rational mind and exercise in bodily autonomy rather than the act of a deranged being or that CTB being a product of 'mental illness'. Such a reframing is an important step because it would mean the State has much less justification, both legally and morally when it comes to preventing CTB at all costs.