4 ms·

Yet another drug banned for no good reason, basicallly because it could be "psychoactive". Doesn't need to be proven harmful. However the addictive, harmful, in

Yet another drug banned for no good reason, basicallly because it could be "psychoactive". Doesn't need to be proven harmful. However the addictive, harmful, indeed deadly tobacco and alcohol are protected by government.

tudorw 10y ago
we are getting ourselves in a mess with this, psycho pharma genetic nutrition says most things we eat have 'psychoactive' potential, as does our mood, environment, genetic make up and food, we are psychoactive beings walking around in electromagnetic energy fields...
- byebyetech 10y ago
  I think exercise also gives you high. Maybe they should ban people from doing it.
  - riskable 10y ago
    Don't tell the DEA about "runner's high"!
mindslight 10y ago
The very premise of banning something because it is psychoactive is a blatant assault on every person's intellect, regardless of whether they see personal utility in using drugs or not. A government has no business dictating how people must think.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
NoGravitas 10y ago
Tobacco and alcohol are grandfathered in, basically. If they were newly introduced today, they'd probably never be allowed.
- mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
  It's interesting since a number of other drugs banned are as old as, if not possible older than, tobacco and alcohol.
criddell 10y ago
> basicallly because it could be "psychoactive" The article doesn't say that. They talk about the public health issues. Plus, it's only a temporary ban. They have two years to study the drug and decide if the ban is justified or not. That doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if there appears to be a public health issue. I like how the article ends saying the ban doesn't come into effect until the end of the month to give users time to dispose of their stockpile. Yeah... that's what's going to happen.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  How do you study a Schedule I substance?
  - criddell 10y ago
    You should ask the people who do it. For example, I know there was a recent study around using MDMA to treat PTSD. If the DEA can't come up with a study to show harm, the drugs come off the list in two years.

tudorw 10y ago

we are getting ourselves in a mess with this, psycho pharma genetic nutrition says most things we eat have 'psychoactive' potential, as does our mood, environment, genetic make up and food, we are psychoactive beings walking around in electromagnetic energy fields...

byebyetech 10y ago
I think exercise also gives you high. Maybe they should ban people from doing it.
- riskable 10y ago
  Don't tell the DEA about "runner's high"!

mindslight 10y ago

The very premise of banning something because it is psychoactive is a blatant assault on every person's intellect, regardless of whether they see personal utility in using drugs or not. A government has no business dictating how people must think.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

NoGravitas 10y ago

Tobacco and alcohol are grandfathered in, basically. If they were newly introduced today, they'd probably never be allowed.

mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
It's interesting since a number of other drugs banned are as old as, if not possible older than, tobacco and alcohol.

criddell 10y ago

> basicallly because it could be "psychoactive" The article doesn't say that. They talk about the public health issues. Plus, it's only a temporary ban. They have two years to study the drug and decide if the ban is justified or not. That doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if there appears to be a public health issue. I like how the article ends saying the ban doesn't come into effect until the end of the month to give users time to dispose of their stockpile. Yeah... that's what's going to happen.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago
How do you study a Schedule I substance?
- criddell 10y ago
  You should ask the people who do it. For example, I know there was a recent study around using MDMA to treat PTSD. If the DEA can't come up with a study to show harm, the drugs come off the list in two years.