> The individual shouldn’t be required to prove that these substances are risk-free, because few things in life are—rather it should be up to the state to prove

> The individual shouldn’t be required to prove that these substances are risk-free, because few things in life are—rather it should be up to the state to prove, with scientific evidence, that the risks justify the damage to our civil liberties. In the absence of that, it is impossible that say that this is truly a free society. It's fascinating that the European Convention on Human Rights has a section on freedom of thought. That is such a radical idea, especially in the face of the strength of tradition in Western countries. Looking at this problem from the 6-dimensional moral foundation theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_six_foundations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_s...), I see the main factors holding these drugs hostage to be the particularly conservative values of deference to authority (they're bad because they're illegal) and the desire for group purity (only criminals and bums use drugs, not us good people). A good place to start is what Walsh outlines, scrutinizing the implications for liberty that these prohibitions have. I think wider public discourse would move us closer toward more rational laws. If people see that normal, well-adjusted, successful people (Silicon Valley kids, how's that microdosing going?) use drugs without problems, and also hear from people in authority that they are safer than believed to be in the past, we might make leeway. We have to figure out how to hit as many of those six dimensions as possible to move things forward.