17 ms·

The headline's question should really be reframed to question the validity of these restrictions in the first place. I'm not a user of any of these sorts of su

The headline's question should really be reframed to question the validity of these restrictions in the first place. I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things. Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard, showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc. But there's little mandate that the government should be policing and prosecuting adults for potentially self-destructive private behaviors. Especially in light of all the other addictive and potentially self-destructive legal activities people are heavily involved in, any pretense of that mandate crumbles. Only when it threatens the safety, or disrupts the public civility, of other non-involved people should there even be a thought of government intervention. Any other conception to reduce individual drug use should be positive pressure like awareness programs and rehab centers.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things." There are a lot of reasons. The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part. But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store? So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go. At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol) and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on the conscientious side. Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity collapse issues from it for a while. Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand. 'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many people for whom this would be risky. 'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave. More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems. It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have widespread availability. Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  You said regulations. Regulations are set after there is a problem. In case of psychedelics, it is a law. If there is a problem, the regulation may be changed, and additional measures taken to get rid of it. The main issue with these laws is that they are speculative. It is actually very likely that nothing would change much if at all, except number of arrests and related costs. Oh and reduced cut for the black market. Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings. (As opposed to drugs like opium, tobacco or alcohol which have always been one with few exceptions yet are less regulated.) "Think of the children" is a cheap shot that can be used to set any number of odious laws. Show evidence of harm and how the law helps with it. The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - xg15 8y ago
    > The main issue with these "laws" is that they are speculative Sorry to pull that quote out of context, but this is just peak HN. It's beautiful. > Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings So we should only allow them in ritual settings then? > The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader. I actually agree with that point. However, I don't see how from any of this follows that you should simply allow them without any precautions or any restrictions. Alcohol, tobacco, even coffee is regulated. As an analogy, we deem it useful that you can purchase a car and drive around with it. Nevertheless, we demand that you get a driver's license first, because there is enough evidence that driving is an often highly counterintuitive activity that can lead to serious damage unless you had proper training first. There is also evidence that you need certain prerequisites even with that training, which is the reason we e.g. wouldn't let a 10 year old drive at all.
    - 8y ago
wallace_f 8y ago
The federal government has no right to do it anyways. People forget the constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government, not the people. Clarence Thomas discussed this in his dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich where homegrown medical marijuana was legally grown in California for personal use, but destroyed without due process, and with disregard to the fifth, ninth, tenth amendments, by the federal government. In his dissent, Thomas complained that: "the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
stef25 8y ago
I have plenty of experience with all kinds of psychedelics and don't think they should be available in your local corner store. Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions. Holland already did this experiment since you used to be able to buy mushrooms over the counter. Quite a few tourists lost their minds or worse. Nobody should ever face legal consequences for personal use of any drug but they should remain hard to find. Anyway everyone knows you don't find acid, acid finds you.
- philbarr 8y ago
  > Anyway everyone knows you don't find acid, acid finds you. What does that mean?
  - Hendrikto 8y ago
    Absolutely nothing. Like the rest of what he said.
  - kimdotcom 8y ago
    It is difficult to obtain, and usually somebody offers it to you when you are not expecting it.
  - ada1981 8y ago
    There is a commonly held belief in the Psychedelics community that when you are “ready” the molecule will present itself. Ie, you decide you’d like to trip at the Phish show and the old man next to you offers you mushrooms, unsolicited, after you haven’t been offered mushrooms for 50 shows. That type of thing. Also interesting to note that LSD & MDMA have similar origin stories. They were both previously synthesized and catagorized as unuseful and then interesting characters had a flash of insight to resynthesize them after decades of being dormant.
- crypt1d 8y ago
  > Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions. That's the thing, you just like to think that. Yet, you offer no evidence to back your claim, or your expertise in the matter. At best, your evidence is anecdotal (so far) and cannot be used in a more general discussion about psychedelics.
otakucode 8y ago
Yes, it bothers me tremendously whenever I see people asking "should X be allowed?" and similar things. That's the wrong question. It comes from an original position of assuming that everything is forbidden by default, and that good reason must be given for that restriction to be lifted. This is not how the world works. It is restriction that is the aberrant case, and the one which needs to be constantly defending itself. The moment it becomes clear that the restriction is not justified, it must be gotten rid of. Restriction is inherently costly and harmful. If it is not preventing greater harm than it is causing, there's no defense for it. When it comes to psychedelic drugs and other drugs generally, there has never been any legitimate basis for their prohibition. Even poisons like arsenic and cyanide aren't regulated the way drugs that simply make you smile for awhile are. I suspect most people simply want to skirt the backing philosophy behind drug prohibition. They don't want to discuss whether the belief that easy pleasure is immoral has merit. They don't want to have to say out loud or try to defend the idea that people would abandon productive, full lives to pursue chemically-induced pleasure states in large numbers. Mostly because they're not confident in their ability to hold those arguments, and they fear it might make them easily swindled I think.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things." There are a lot of reasons. The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part. But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store? So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go. At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol) and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on the conscientious side. Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity collapse issues from it for a while. Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand. 'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many people for whom this would be risky. 'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave. More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems. It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have widespread availability. Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.

AstralStorm 8y ago
You said regulations. Regulations are set after there is a problem. In case of psychedelics, it is a law. If there is a problem, the regulation may be changed, and additional measures taken to get rid of it. The main issue with these laws is that they are speculative. It is actually very likely that nothing would change much if at all, except number of arrests and related costs. Oh and reduced cut for the black market. Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings. (As opposed to drugs like opium, tobacco or alcohol which have always been one with few exceptions yet are less regulated.) "Think of the children" is a cheap shot that can be used to set any number of odious laws. Show evidence of harm and how the law helps with it. The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- xg15 8y ago
  > The main issue with these "laws" is that they are speculative Sorry to pull that quote out of context, but this is just peak HN. It's beautiful. > Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings So we should only allow them in ritual settings then? > The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader. I actually agree with that point. However, I don't see how from any of this follows that you should simply allow them without any precautions or any restrictions. Alcohol, tobacco, even coffee is regulated. As an analogy, we deem it useful that you can purchase a car and drive around with it. Nevertheless, we demand that you get a driver's license first, because there is enough evidence that driving is an often highly counterintuitive activity that can lead to serious damage unless you had proper training first. There is also evidence that you need certain prerequisites even with that training, which is the reason we e.g. wouldn't let a 10 year old drive at all.
  - 8y ago

wallace_f 8y ago

The federal government has no right to do it anyways. People forget the constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government, not the people. Clarence Thomas discussed this in his dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich where homegrown medical marijuana was legally grown in California for personal use, but destroyed without due process, and with disregard to the fifth, ninth, tenth amendments, by the federal government. In his dissent, Thomas complained that: "the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

stef25 8y ago

I have plenty of experience with all kinds of psychedelics and don't think they should be available in your local corner store. Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions. Holland already did this experiment since you used to be able to buy mushrooms over the counter. Quite a few tourists lost their minds or worse. Nobody should ever face legal consequences for personal use of any drug but they should remain hard to find. Anyway everyone knows you don't find acid, acid finds you.

philbarr 8y ago
> Anyway everyone knows you don't find acid, acid finds you. What does that mean?
- Hendrikto 8y ago
  Absolutely nothing. Like the rest of what he said.
- kimdotcom 8y ago
  It is difficult to obtain, and usually somebody offers it to you when you are not expecting it.
- ada1981 8y ago
  There is a commonly held belief in the Psychedelics community that when you are “ready” the molecule will present itself. Ie, you decide you’d like to trip at the Phish show and the old man next to you offers you mushrooms, unsolicited, after you haven’t been offered mushrooms for 50 shows. That type of thing. Also interesting to note that LSD & MDMA have similar origin stories. They were both previously synthesized and catagorized as unuseful and then interesting characters had a flash of insight to resynthesize them after decades of being dormant.
crypt1d 8y ago
> Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions. That's the thing, you just like to think that. Yet, you offer no evidence to back your claim, or your expertise in the matter. At best, your evidence is anecdotal (so far) and cannot be used in a more general discussion about psychedelics.

otakucode 8y ago

Yes, it bothers me tremendously whenever I see people asking "should X be allowed?" and similar things. That's the wrong question. It comes from an original position of assuming that everything is forbidden by default, and that good reason must be given for that restriction to be lifted. This is not how the world works. It is restriction that is the aberrant case, and the one which needs to be constantly defending itself. The moment it becomes clear that the restriction is not justified, it must be gotten rid of. Restriction is inherently costly and harmful. If it is not preventing greater harm than it is causing, there's no defense for it. When it comes to psychedelic drugs and other drugs generally, there has never been any legitimate basis for their prohibition. Even poisons like arsenic and cyanide aren't regulated the way drugs that simply make you smile for awhile are. I suspect most people simply want to skirt the backing philosophy behind drug prohibition. They don't want to discuss whether the belief that easy pleasure is immoral has merit. They don't want to have to say out loud or try to defend the idea that people would abandon productive, full lives to pursue chemically-induced pleasure states in large numbers. Mostly because they're not confident in their ability to hold those arguments, and they fear it might make them easily swindled I think.