tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post5738494312805623711..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: Legal highsEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-38901711536498541142015-01-15T10:50:46.207+13:002015-01-15T10:50:46.207+13:00If only the darned things had two incisors rather ...If only the darned things had two incisors rather than four...Eric Cramptonhttp://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-61757255736212514012015-01-14T20:35:07.035+13:002015-01-14T20:35:07.035+13:00The other thing that doesn't get discussed is ...The other thing that doesn't get discussed is the rabbit fuckup. From what I've heard, there seems to be a non-negligible possibility that an animal-testing compromise could have stuck if it hadn't been built on the assumption that rabbits are rodents and then publicised before the mistake was found out.Thomas Lumleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-75414979396654877062015-01-13T09:50:05.850+13:002015-01-13T09:50:05.850+13:00I wonder whether we mightn't need a broader ch...I wonder whether we mightn't need a broader change where instead of it just going to an ethics committee that decides whether the benefits outweigh the costs, the ethics committee would decide only on whether the harms inflicted on the animal were trivial, moderate, substantial, or oh-my-gawd-awful. Map that to a by-animal-sentience fee schedule, and let the testers decide for themselves whether it passes cost-benefit. Fees collected under the scheme would be put to some kind of benefit-animal programme - ideally something to rehabilitate and give a happy retirement for those lab animals that weren't killed in testing.Eric Cramptonhttp://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-46695732592460698202015-01-12T20:46:47.339+13:002015-01-12T20:46:47.339+13:00Right, except that the harm done to animals via te...Right, except that the harm done to animals via testing is so great that the offsetting benefits would have to be pretty substantial, a criterion certainly not satisfied by any ruling in or out of dodgy narcotics.<br /><br />As VMC points out, the simple, and economically efficient, solution is to change the legislation so as to remove the need for animal testing. Internalise the problem by letting the dope-heads test it on themselves.Glenn Boylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-26920055554811188792015-01-12T17:16:57.606+13:002015-01-12T17:16:57.606+13:00Except that the legislation now requires it be pro...Except that the legislation now requires it be proven safe while forbidding the only method that in NZ could provide such proof!<br /><br /><br />I think you're getting dangerously close to weighing others' utils based on your preferences rather than theirs. Perhaps there's an alternative framework that could work better: a per-animal testing tax that varies with the harm the animal experiences, and is the same whether you're testing food colouring, antibiotics, hallucinogens, or cold medicine. Harming animals is bad, but not a bad that cannot be outweighed by other goods.Eric Cramptonhttp://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-22665420068569975432015-01-12T16:18:46.778+13:002015-01-12T16:18:46.778+13:00Dont have any disagreement about the benefits of ...Dont have any disagreement about the benefits of a legal market. But that does not require animals to suffer so that dope-heads and others can get their jollies. For instance, consuming a party drug could be treated exactly the same way as mountain climbing - totally at the users risk. I thought Ross Bell wrote a good article there, possibly illustrating the benefits of leaving well alone.VMCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-22926552392904583782015-01-12T15:43:37.008+13:002015-01-12T15:43:37.008+13:00Sure, and Banks should get a lot of credit for fai...Sure, and Banks should get a lot of credit for faithfully fronting the party despite his ideological differences with some of its positions.<br /><br /><br />I would disagree pretty strongly on "little consequence" though. Getting a legal market for safer highs would be pretty consequential.Eric Cramptonhttp://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-2164380761303974572015-01-12T10:36:18.848+13:002015-01-12T10:36:18.848+13:00John Banks was never a very liberal person, at any...John Banks was never a very liberal person, at any stage. But the one thing I (and thousands of others) do think he got right was to stand behind those seeking to prevent experiments when the results would be of such little consequenceVMCnoreply@blogger.com