3 ms·
Just to complete this line of reasoning -- the grandparent comment does not distinguish between good and bad effects of psychedelic mushrooms. It's easy (even
by Footkerchief 9y ago
Just to complete this line of reasoning -- the grandparent comment does not distinguish between good and bad effects of psychedelic mushrooms. It's easy (even reasonable) to skip over that distinction with mushrooms, because their bad effects are few and minor.
Mushrooms and leaded wine both have effects that their users long considered good. The difference between them, for purposes of this argument, is that for leaded wine we've since discovered very bad effects that completely outweigh the good effects, whereas for mushrooms we haven't.
- scruple 9y ago> because their bad effects are few and minor. I have issues with this. I've personally had very bad mushroom trips that have had effects that lingered for a year or longer. I'm not saying keep them illegal, but I don't for one second believe it's a black and white issue, either.
- uoaei 9y agoNot necessarily black and white, sure, but there is a threshold defined as the net personal/social benefit of the thing. If this is net positive, there's not enough reason to ban it. If there is net negative, there are reasons to ban it. Further, the ban/not ban dichotomy is also fuzzier in practice. We can restrict access according to attributes of people, or restrict consumption to private settings, or otherwise. These decisions must be informed by the net benefit.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y agoDisagree. Mushrooms that have had mold grow on them are pretty much guaranteed to make you sick and guarantee a bad experience. So it is possible to have objectively bad mushrooms in nearly the same way as you can have objectively bad wine.
- efnx 9y agoLead poisoning has permanent negative effects, mushrooms not so much.