9 ms·

Does anyone else get almost irrationally angry about this? I HATE that the freedom to modulate our own minds was taken away from us by these awful politicians f

by md224 11y ago

Does anyone else get almost irrationally angry about this? I HATE that the freedom to modulate our own minds was taken away from us by these awful politicians for such terrible reasons. Not only has the War on Drugs ruined countless lives through incarceration and overdosing, but so many potentially helpful chemicals have been hidden away from society. It isn't just about getting "high"... it's about unleashing our full pharmacological potential in a safe and productive manner. The War on Drugs is so fucking stupid and so many people are paying the price. I don't know if anything makes me as angry as this.

rayiner 11y ago
The ability to "modulate [your] . . . mind" is why so many people (80-90% when it comes to drugs besides marijuana), oppose drug legalization. Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It's important to remember that most people think the opposite way as those on HN. They do not assume that new things will automatically make society better. They have a strong "don't fix what isn't broken" tendency. And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit.
- BatFastard 11y ago
  That's because most people just consume the mass media with out applying much thought to the process. Not only is the the people unjustly put in prison. But their families, central America and Mexico, the lives ruined and lost there.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Lots of people who oppose the drug war nonetheless believe that people should not be "modulating their minds" with drugs.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  No they don't. Their - or anyone's - ability to restructure society is (or at least ought to be) constrained by the requirement to respect the rights of those in that society.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    I agree that it ought to be, but to a lot of people, those rights end when they involve behavior outside unspoken social norms. The concept of rights and freedoms has always brushed up against that limit. There's been constant change in what those norms are, but changing them has never been easy.
- qbit 11y ago
  > And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. I strongly disagree. There are certain human rights that should not be able to be voted away in a democracy. I believe that the right to modulate our own minds as we see fit belongs in this category.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    People aren't "modulating their minds" in isolation. Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. Drug use affects the ability of drug users to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, drug use might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or fall ill from drug use.
    - msandford 11y ago
      > Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. It's not illegal for me to be a sober (or drunk) asshole. Nor is it illegal for me to be sober (or drunk) and just decide not to go to work, consequences be damned. People are allowed to get drunk legally, despite the statistically increased propensity for violence, douchebaggery, etc. What makes alcohol "good" and drugs "bad"? Nothing more than tradition, as far as I can tell. You're not making a great argument for why drug use should continue to be illegal.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        I'm not making any argument why drug use should be illegal. I'm making an argument for why the public should be entitled to decide whether drug use is legal or illegal. I also think, given your examples, the public should also be entitled to decide whether alcohol should be illegal.
        mbrock 11y ago
        Such an argument should mention the likelihood of a ban actually being enforced in a functional and just way. "The public" may wish to eliminate all mind-altering substances, but the allure of altering the mind is strong, and the enormous contingent of people who desire to consume is going to have to be repressed. The argument about family and relations, for example, is not so straightforward. What's preferrable, a dad who smokes cannabis or a dad who's in prison?
- Malician 11y ago
  Growing up, just about everyone I knew was strongly anti-drug. I don't like weed and I've never taken an amphetamine, cocaine, or any form of (illegal, or even potent-but-legal opiod); I think we have a huge problem with the legal abuse of amphetamines and opiods. But: Everyone I've talked to in favor of criminalization is completely uneducated on the subject. They don't know real-world addiction rates, or the actual effects of drugs, or understand the history of drug policy. It's their choice to remain ignorant, but when they start throwing people in jail and destroying entire communities pointlessly while holding fingers to their ears - there's a certain sense in which that is unforgivable. And there are not many things I can't forgive.
- zeemonkee3 11y ago
  Is this the same human society that's perfectly OK with Valium and Adderall and Oxycontin? Democracy fails when irrational prejudice trumps common sense and tolerance. Prohibition was a mass democratic movement that pulled together Christian teetotalers, American nativists, socialists and sufferagettes; it was a complete disaster on all fronts.
  - hutzlibu 11y ago
    Democracy fails when the demos fails. If you have a lot of stupid people, then you have a lot of stupid laws. So I don't see the problem with democracy, just with stupid people.
    - zeemonkee3 11y ago
      Intelligent, well-educated people are capable of appalling stupidity and herd-mentality. Or as Agent K said in Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are stupid."
      - hutzlibu 11y ago
        And the very same person did this, to justify to lie to the whole humanity about the existence of aliens ... to keep them as stupid sheeps. So I don't agree. It might be, that intelligent people give in to group pressure of a all in all much more stupid group. But even if you have too much stupid people, their collective intelligence still pays off.
  - random_upvoter 11y ago
    Oxycontin is a prescription drug. I suppose it's illegal to acquire this drug without the permission of a doctor. I'm curious how many of people are in favor of making opioid painkillers -- which already kill 16,000 Americans/year -- an over the counter drug for recreational use.
- Freaky 11y ago
  > It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. ... "new" chemicals are already in the mix. Criminalization is ineffective in reducing usage, it's especially ineffective in reducing harm, and on top of that it creates substantial additional harms.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Furthermore, some of those "new" chemicals have been used in religious rituals for literally thousands of years.
- pjc50 11y ago
  they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. Not to the extent of abrogating other people's fundamental liberties. A large part of the US white community would quite like an apartheit society, which they are absolutely not allowed to have any more.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    How large?
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      I'm guessing it's "yuuuuge".
    - beedogs 11y ago
      Considering 20% of Trump voters think freeing the slaves was a bad idea[0], I'd say "a lot". [0] http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/ http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/
      - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
        I looked for information about the poll but the page you linked and the linked page within the relevant section both appear to lack that information. The 20% is an approximation, apparently. It seems the question was: Should "the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government" have been made, or something similar. Was that worded badly on purpose, it appears to say "is freeing people who are rebelling against the government good"? I find the statistic hard to believe, such a claim needs careful support which is lacking. The details that are given suggest an opaque question. Such questions need follow-up questions to gauge understanding and depth of sentiment. Anyone who asks that and doesn't then ask 'so should the slaves have been freed at all?' as a follow-up is most likely being deceptive.
        ufmace 11y ago
        Thanks for looking that up, I was immediately suspicious of that number. Way for somebody to conflate the complex geopolitical question of exactly which slaves to free when while in the middle of a civil war with the question of whether the slaves should be freed at all.
- snsr 11y ago
  > Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. Bullshit. > It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It is absolutely unreasonable. Moreover, it's really not your concern. > It's important to remember that most people think the opposite way as those on HN. They do not assume that new things will automatically make society better. They have a strong "don't fix what isn't broken" tendency. And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. It's probably time for you to start using "I" instead of "they".
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It is not appropriate for him to use "I" instead of "they" in an purely descriptive, non-normative, objectively-verifiable statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
    - snsr 11y ago
      I may suck at grammar, but that doesn't change the fact that the 'objectively verifiable' nature of a position doesn't make said position correct. I think, in this case, that it's likely incorrect. rayiner's claims, in this comment, are exceptionally broad, unfounded and, obviously, a personal opinion extrapolated and attributed to a larger group.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Non sequitur. He didn't say the position was correct; he said it was widely held. He is right. Your arguments, thus far, are incoherent.
        snsr 11y ago
        > He didn't say the position was correct; he said it was widely held. He is right. Your arguments, thus far, are incoherent. Completely unsubstantiated.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  >It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. The media helps this along by sensationalizing any erratic behavior done under the influence of new chemicals. Just look at the coverage bath salts got a few years ago. It's not just new chemicals either. Stories pop up all the time speculating whether we're over-prescribing ritalin, benzos, antidepressants, pain killers and other mind altering legal drugs. The arguments against are overwhelmingly addiction, but there's also concerns over dementia, suicidal thoughts, and other mental disturbances. We're already afraid of what happens with chemicals already in the mix, so it is reasonable to be afraid of what might happen with new chemicals.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dclowd9901 11y ago
I totally hear you. It absolutely infuriates me that such bad policy can be so hard-headingly acted, and it's actually the biggest reason I'm libertarian leaning. I don't even consume drugs, but the drug war is so bad, so pervasive and so toxic, it affects my ability to travel, it destroys countless lives and it causes mass inequality in the US. It absolutely makes me lose faith in government as a concept.
- sebastianconcpt 11y ago
  same here
polshaw 11y ago
Try being in the UK right now. The government have even given up the pretence that it has anything to do with harm-- every unapproved psychoactive substance on earth is about to be banned from sale/import. Be thankful at least you are dealing with a blacklist and not a (very short) whitelist! The whitelist being; tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco/nicotine, in addition to prescription medication.
- user_0001 11y ago
  true, but on the other hand you can get caught with 1-2 grams of any powder, less than an oz of cannabis and nothing will come of it. Anything you can argue in court is personal (which is quite a lot) and at worst you are looking at a few hours of community service in most cases.
  - norniron 11y ago
    The court sentence isn't the only consequence to be considered here. Having a criminal record could hurt future employment opportunities. Your parents will probably treat you like some drug addict and so on.
    - user_0001 11y ago
      Might get a criminal record. Not a certain. But it is not ideal granted. But compared to how it appears to be in the US. Coerced into being an informer, mandatory minimums etc - it isn't so bad
- Ntrails 11y ago
  It would be easier for politicians not to take action if morons could stop getting themselves killed by getting drunk and then combining ecstasy and some random powders... Oh look some lovely headlines coming in now. How could anyone have known that there was a risk in that action??? The poor little teenager... As someone who has zero skin in the game, I'm for full legalisation - but at the same time it has to come with taking responsibility for the consequences of choices - especially those taken whilst under the influence.
awt 11y ago
Anything that is not a war on a state or group of people reduces to a war on physics and/or math.
madaxe_again 11y ago
Now, how about that War On Terror? Perhaps, just perhaps, it wasn't started on the principals it publicly declares to have been started upon - or are we playing the "no, this is different because it's different" game?
SpaceCadetJones 11y ago
Let's also not forget about the decades of research we've missed out on. The brain is an incredibly complex system, and a great way to gain insight into a complex system is to tinker with its mechanics and watch what happens. We've also been missing out on new therapeutic medicines. With the research around ketamine we finally have something new to target depression besides selective reuptake inhibitors, which are a bit of a joke IMO. As someone with ADHD I'm also particularly interested in researching effects of cannabinoids. There's something in cannabis that does a wonderful job to help stimulate my attention, motivation, and awareness, but unfortunately also wrecks my working memory.
neverknowsbest 11y ago
Extremely angry, to the point that I can't actually have persuasive conversations about it with the pro-DARE crowd because their perspective boggles me so. This quote sticks out as to the why of the dissenters, but doesn't levy them much sympathy: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy"

by md224 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

The ability to "modulate [your] . . . mind" is why so many people (80-90% when it comes to drugs besides marijuana), oppose drug legalization. Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It's important to remember that most people think the opposite way as those on HN. They do not assume that new things will automatically make society better. They have a strong "don't fix what isn't broken" tendency. And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit.

BatFastard 11y ago
That's because most people just consume the mass media with out applying much thought to the process. Not only is the the people unjustly put in prison. But their families, central America and Mexico, the lives ruined and lost there.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Lots of people who oppose the drug war nonetheless believe that people should not be "modulating their minds" with drugs.
duncan_bayne 11y ago
No they don't. Their - or anyone's - ability to restructure society is (or at least ought to be) constrained by the requirement to respect the rights of those in that society.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  I agree that it ought to be, but to a lot of people, those rights end when they involve behavior outside unspoken social norms. The concept of rights and freedoms has always brushed up against that limit. There's been constant change in what those norms are, but changing them has never been easy.
qbit 11y ago
> And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. I strongly disagree. There are certain human rights that should not be able to be voted away in a democracy. I believe that the right to modulate our own minds as we see fit belongs in this category.
- rayiner 11y ago
  People aren't "modulating their minds" in isolation. Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. Drug use affects the ability of drug users to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, drug use might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or fall ill from drug use.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. It's not illegal for me to be a sober (or drunk) asshole. Nor is it illegal for me to be sober (or drunk) and just decide not to go to work, consequences be damned. People are allowed to get drunk legally, despite the statistically increased propensity for violence, douchebaggery, etc. What makes alcohol "good" and drugs "bad"? Nothing more than tradition, as far as I can tell. You're not making a great argument for why drug use should continue to be illegal.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I'm not making any argument why drug use should be illegal. I'm making an argument for why the public should be entitled to decide whether drug use is legal or illegal. I also think, given your examples, the public should also be entitled to decide whether alcohol should be illegal.
      - mbrock 11y ago
        Such an argument should mention the likelihood of a ban actually being enforced in a functional and just way. "The public" may wish to eliminate all mind-altering substances, but the allure of altering the mind is strong, and the enormous contingent of people who desire to consume is going to have to be repressed. The argument about family and relations, for example, is not so straightforward. What's preferrable, a dad who smokes cannabis or a dad who's in prison?
Malician 11y ago
Growing up, just about everyone I knew was strongly anti-drug. I don't like weed and I've never taken an amphetamine, cocaine, or any form of (illegal, or even potent-but-legal opiod); I think we have a huge problem with the legal abuse of amphetamines and opiods. But: Everyone I've talked to in favor of criminalization is completely uneducated on the subject. They don't know real-world addiction rates, or the actual effects of drugs, or understand the history of drug policy. It's their choice to remain ignorant, but when they start throwing people in jail and destroying entire communities pointlessly while holding fingers to their ears - there's a certain sense in which that is unforgivable. And there are not many things I can't forgive.
zeemonkee3 11y ago
Is this the same human society that's perfectly OK with Valium and Adderall and Oxycontin? Democracy fails when irrational prejudice trumps common sense and tolerance. Prohibition was a mass democratic movement that pulled together Christian teetotalers, American nativists, socialists and sufferagettes; it was a complete disaster on all fronts.
- hutzlibu 11y ago
  Democracy fails when the demos fails. If you have a lot of stupid people, then you have a lot of stupid laws. So I don't see the problem with democracy, just with stupid people.
  - zeemonkee3 11y ago
    Intelligent, well-educated people are capable of appalling stupidity and herd-mentality. Or as Agent K said in Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are stupid."
    - hutzlibu 11y ago
      And the very same person did this, to justify to lie to the whole humanity about the existence of aliens ... to keep them as stupid sheeps. So I don't agree. It might be, that intelligent people give in to group pressure of a all in all much more stupid group. But even if you have too much stupid people, their collective intelligence still pays off.
- random_upvoter 11y ago
  Oxycontin is a prescription drug. I suppose it's illegal to acquire this drug without the permission of a doctor. I'm curious how many of people are in favor of making opioid painkillers -- which already kill 16,000 Americans/year -- an over the counter drug for recreational use.
Freaky 11y ago
> It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. ... "new" chemicals are already in the mix. Criminalization is ineffective in reducing usage, it's especially ineffective in reducing harm, and on top of that it creates substantial additional harms.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Furthermore, some of those "new" chemicals have been used in religious rituals for literally thousands of years.
pjc50 11y ago
they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. Not to the extent of abrogating other people's fundamental liberties. A large part of the US white community would quite like an apartheit society, which they are absolutely not allowed to have any more.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  How large?
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    I'm guessing it's "yuuuuge".
  - beedogs 11y ago
    Considering 20% of Trump voters think freeing the slaves was a bad idea[0], I'd say "a lot". [0] http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/ http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      I looked for information about the poll but the page you linked and the linked page within the relevant section both appear to lack that information. The 20% is an approximation, apparently. It seems the question was: Should "the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government" have been made, or something similar. Was that worded badly on purpose, it appears to say "is freeing people who are rebelling against the government good"? I find the statistic hard to believe, such a claim needs careful support which is lacking. The details that are given suggest an opaque question. Such questions need follow-up questions to gauge understanding and depth of sentiment. Anyone who asks that and doesn't then ask 'so should the slaves have been freed at all?' as a follow-up is most likely being deceptive.
      - ufmace 11y ago
        Thanks for looking that up, I was immediately suspicious of that number. Way for somebody to conflate the complex geopolitical question of exactly which slaves to free when while in the middle of a civil war with the question of whether the slaves should be freed at all.
snsr 11y ago
> Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. Bullshit. > It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It is absolutely unreasonable. Moreover, it's really not your concern. > It's important to remember that most people think the opposite way as those on HN. They do not assume that new things will automatically make society better. They have a strong "don't fix what isn't broken" tendency. And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. It's probably time for you to start using "I" instead of "they".
- tptacek 11y ago
  It is not appropriate for him to use "I" instead of "they" in an purely descriptive, non-normative, objectively-verifiable statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
  - snsr 11y ago
    I may suck at grammar, but that doesn't change the fact that the 'objectively verifiable' nature of a position doesn't make said position correct. I think, in this case, that it's likely incorrect. rayiner's claims, in this comment, are exceptionally broad, unfounded and, obviously, a personal opinion extrapolated and attributed to a larger group.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Non sequitur. He didn't say the position was correct; he said it was widely held. He is right. Your arguments, thus far, are incoherent.
      - snsr 11y ago
        > He didn't say the position was correct; he said it was widely held. He is right. Your arguments, thus far, are incoherent. Completely unsubstantiated.
xlm1717 11y ago
>It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. The media helps this along by sensationalizing any erratic behavior done under the influence of new chemicals. Just look at the coverage bath salts got a few years ago. It's not just new chemicals either. Stories pop up all the time speculating whether we're over-prescribing ritalin, benzos, antidepressants, pain killers and other mind altering legal drugs. The arguments against are overwhelmingly addiction, but there's also concerns over dementia, suicidal thoughts, and other mental disturbances. We're already afraid of what happens with chemicals already in the mix, so it is reasonable to be afraid of what might happen with new chemicals.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dclowd9901 11y ago

I totally hear you. It absolutely infuriates me that such bad policy can be so hard-headingly acted, and it's actually the biggest reason I'm libertarian leaning. I don't even consume drugs, but the drug war is so bad, so pervasive and so toxic, it affects my ability to travel, it destroys countless lives and it causes mass inequality in the US. It absolutely makes me lose faith in government as a concept.

sebastianconcpt 11y ago
same here

polshaw 11y ago

Try being in the UK right now. The government have even given up the pretence that it has anything to do with harm-- every unapproved psychoactive substance on earth is about to be banned from sale/import. Be thankful at least you are dealing with a blacklist and not a (very short) whitelist! The whitelist being; tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco/nicotine, in addition to prescription medication.

user_0001 11y ago
true, but on the other hand you can get caught with 1-2 grams of any powder, less than an oz of cannabis and nothing will come of it. Anything you can argue in court is personal (which is quite a lot) and at worst you are looking at a few hours of community service in most cases.
- norniron 11y ago
  The court sentence isn't the only consequence to be considered here. Having a criminal record could hurt future employment opportunities. Your parents will probably treat you like some drug addict and so on.
  - user_0001 11y ago
    Might get a criminal record. Not a certain. But it is not ideal granted. But compared to how it appears to be in the US. Coerced into being an informer, mandatory minimums etc - it isn't so bad
Ntrails 11y ago
It would be easier for politicians not to take action if morons could stop getting themselves killed by getting drunk and then combining ecstasy and some random powders... Oh look some lovely headlines coming in now. How could anyone have known that there was a risk in that action??? The poor little teenager... As someone who has zero skin in the game, I'm for full legalisation - but at the same time it has to come with taking responsibility for the consequences of choices - especially those taken whilst under the influence.

awt 11y ago

Anything that is not a war on a state or group of people reduces to a war on physics and/or math.

madaxe_again 11y ago

Now, how about that War On Terror? Perhaps, just perhaps, it wasn't started on the principals it publicly declares to have been started upon - or are we playing the "no, this is different because it's different" game?

SpaceCadetJones 11y ago

Let's also not forget about the decades of research we've missed out on. The brain is an incredibly complex system, and a great way to gain insight into a complex system is to tinker with its mechanics and watch what happens. We've also been missing out on new therapeutic medicines. With the research around ketamine we finally have something new to target depression besides selective reuptake inhibitors, which are a bit of a joke IMO. As someone with ADHD I'm also particularly interested in researching effects of cannabinoids. There's something in cannabis that does a wonderful job to help stimulate my attention, motivation, and awareness, but unfortunately also wrecks my working memory.

neverknowsbest 11y ago

Extremely angry, to the point that I can't actually have persuasive conversations about it with the pro-DARE crowd because their perspective boggles me so. This quote sticks out as to the why of the dissenters, but doesn't levy them much sympathy: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy"