9 ms·

Because they impair your ability to function and can lead to long term psychological problems?

by dqpb 9y ago

tcbawo 9y ago
To play devil's advocate, they clearly have potential for therapeutic use in a medical setting. It's a shame there are so many hurdles in the way.
StavrosK 9y ago
Boy, I sure am glad alcohol is illegal.
- ams6110 9y ago
  The rejoinder to that argument is "two wrongs don't make a right" or generally that you can't justify allowing some bad thing because some other similar bad thing is allowed. It's a form of whataboutism. Sure, it may make no sense that alcohol and tobacco are legal but weed and mushrooms aren't. They're all natural substances, they are all mood altering, they are all capable of being enjoyed in moderation and also can cause harm if used in excess. But though alcohol and tobacco are legal, for whatever good or not good reasons, that isn't a logical argument for making more intoxicants legal.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    > that isn't a logical argument for making more intoxicants legal. "Alcohol is legal, therefore anything less harmful than that should also be legal" isn't a logical argument?
    - jonreem 9y ago
      Not if you believe that alcohol being legal is already wrong but are pragmatic about its pre-existing hold on society making it impossible to change. To be clear I don’t buy this argument since I disagree with the premise, but if you agree with the premise then it does make sense.
      - xhedley 9y ago
        Pre-existing hold plus the ingredients required to create ethanol (sugar, water, airborne or fruit or baking yeast, warmth) are legal and ubiquitous.
      - StavrosK 9y ago
        There isn't really a clear line that goes "you need to be less than THIS risky to be legal". We're comparing things with each other and kind of classifying them based on that. Alcohol and guns being legal definitely should move that line down, because it shows that, as a society, we're okay with some more risky things because <reasons>.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      It ignores the historical context behind controlled substance regulation, and also substitutes first-principles message board reasoning for empiricism. So, that's not quite the rhetorical kill-shot you're hoping for.
      - StavrosK 9y ago
        I wasn't hoping for a kill shot, but that's beside the point. How would you argue for or against the legalization of something without comparing it to other things?
        tptacek 9y ago
        A case for prohibition of both alcohol and hallucinogens can be rational, but for the popularity of alcohol making it untenable to enforce that prohibition. In that set of circumstances, a prohibition targeting hallucinogens alone can still be rational even if the harm from alcohol is comparable. The point, of course, is that comparable harm from alcohol is not dispositive in the discussion of a ban on hallucinogens. Obviously, the notion that LSD is no more harmful than whiskey is also not broadly accepted in our public policy, or really the public policy of most western countries. So there's (at least) two hurdles for your argument to clear. But I'm stipulating the latter argument, because it's the logic you're employing that bugs me, not the equivalence you're trying to draw. These are positive arguments, not normative ones.
    - mantas 9y ago
      What if alcohol is legal at the moment, but society is making it less and less legal, possibly outlawing it in far future?
  - Nursie 9y ago
    You have it backwards - there needs to be a coherent argument to keep them illegal in a free society. When you are saying you will take someone's freedom, their employment prospects, their whole life away because of possession of a substance, you need to be able to justify what you're doing, and to show how the action you are taking to suppress the substance is not causing much more harm. Look at the war on drugs - that argument has been resoundingly lost. States and countries are starting to realise it.
- dqpb 9y ago
  I enjoy wine, cocktails, and beer occasionally, but alcohol has completely destroyed the lives of several people close to me. I would give up my right to it if that reduced the number of people in the future who would otherwise suffer a similar fate.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    I wonder why drugs like this aren't more popular: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1913016,00.html http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1913016,0...
- astura 9y ago
  It's been grandfathered. If alcohol was discovered today it would be illegal.
CPLX 9y ago
That is not a unique attribute however.

Because they impair your ability to function and can lead to long term psychological problems?

by dqpb 9y ago

Because they impair your ability to function and can lead to long term psychological problems?

To play devil's advocate, they clearly have potential for therapeutic use in a medical setting. It's a shame there are so many hurdles in the way.

StavrosK 9y ago

Boy, I sure am glad alcohol is illegal.

ams6110 9y ago
The rejoinder to that argument is "two wrongs don't make a right" or generally that you can't justify allowing some bad thing because some other similar bad thing is allowed. It's a form of whataboutism. Sure, it may make no sense that alcohol and tobacco are legal but weed and mushrooms aren't. They're all natural substances, they are all mood altering, they are all capable of being enjoyed in moderation and also can cause harm if used in excess. But though alcohol and tobacco are legal, for whatever good or not good reasons, that isn't a logical argument for making more intoxicants legal.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  > that isn't a logical argument for making more intoxicants legal. "Alcohol is legal, therefore anything less harmful than that should also be legal" isn't a logical argument?
  - jonreem 9y ago
    Not if you believe that alcohol being legal is already wrong but are pragmatic about its pre-existing hold on society making it impossible to change. To be clear I don’t buy this argument since I disagree with the premise, but if you agree with the premise then it does make sense.
    - xhedley 9y ago
      Pre-existing hold plus the ingredients required to create ethanol (sugar, water, airborne or fruit or baking yeast, warmth) are legal and ubiquitous.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      There isn't really a clear line that goes "you need to be less than THIS risky to be legal". We're comparing things with each other and kind of classifying them based on that. Alcohol and guns being legal definitely should move that line down, because it shows that, as a society, we're okay with some more risky things because <reasons>.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    It ignores the historical context behind controlled substance regulation, and also substitutes first-principles message board reasoning for empiricism. So, that's not quite the rhetorical kill-shot you're hoping for.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      I wasn't hoping for a kill shot, but that's beside the point. How would you argue for or against the legalization of something without comparing it to other things?
      - tptacek 9y ago
        A case for prohibition of both alcohol and hallucinogens can be rational, but for the popularity of alcohol making it untenable to enforce that prohibition. In that set of circumstances, a prohibition targeting hallucinogens alone can still be rational even if the harm from alcohol is comparable. The point, of course, is that comparable harm from alcohol is not dispositive in the discussion of a ban on hallucinogens. Obviously, the notion that LSD is no more harmful than whiskey is also not broadly accepted in our public policy, or really the public policy of most western countries. So there's (at least) two hurdles for your argument to clear. But I'm stipulating the latter argument, because it's the logic you're employing that bugs me, not the equivalence you're trying to draw. These are positive arguments, not normative ones.
  - mantas 9y ago
    What if alcohol is legal at the moment, but society is making it less and less legal, possibly outlawing it in far future?
- Nursie 9y ago
  You have it backwards - there needs to be a coherent argument to keep them illegal in a free society. When you are saying you will take someone's freedom, their employment prospects, their whole life away because of possession of a substance, you need to be able to justify what you're doing, and to show how the action you are taking to suppress the substance is not causing much more harm. Look at the war on drugs - that argument has been resoundingly lost. States and countries are starting to realise it.
dqpb 9y ago
I enjoy wine, cocktails, and beer occasionally, but alcohol has completely destroyed the lives of several people close to me. I would give up my right to it if that reduced the number of people in the future who would otherwise suffer a similar fate.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  I wonder why drugs like this aren't more popular: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1913016,00.html http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1913016,0...
astura 9y ago
It's been grandfathered. If alcohol was discovered today it would be illegal.

CPLX 9y ago

That is not a unique attribute however.