3 ms·
Why is there still a prevalent knee-jerk attitude towards some drugs (or external catalysts that affect the body)? Are the lawmakers uninformed on the real ef
by nugga 8y ago
Why is there still a prevalent knee-jerk attitude towards some drugs (or external catalysts that affect the body)?
Are the lawmakers uninformed on the real effects the drugs have?
Do they know but they can't take a 'pro sense' stance because of (irrational) fears that they'd get booted by their constituents?
Are they influenced (lobbied) by powerful players to resist pouring more money towards research or being more open to moving towards legalization?
Do they actually know but don't care?
- nerdponx 8y agoAre the lawmakers uninformed on the real effects the drugs have? Maybe to some extent. Do they know but they can't take a 'pro sense' stance because of (irrational) fears that they'd get booted by their constituents? Perhaps. If so, it would be the result of decades of successful propaganda. See below. Are they influenced (lobbied) by powerful players to resist pouring more money towards research or being more open to moving towards legalization? Yes.
- toomanybeersies 8y agoThere's a neo-prohabitionist streak that most boomers (which most politicians are and also most voters) have. Consuming any mind altering substance that isn't culturally ingrained (i.e. alcohol or tobacco) is morally wrong, and therefore should be regulated and banned if possible. A lot of them seem to be under the impression that if recreational drugs were legal, everybody would spend their waking hours high and no work would ever get done. My boss recently claimed that they shouldn't legalise recreational cannabis because everyone would be high all the time, yet somehow people manage to avoid being drunk all the time, or at least most of us do.