4 ms·

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,

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.
- J-dawg 8y ago
  In what way are they anything other than speculative? Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places). They are based on ideologically driven speculation about the imagined consequences of legalisation.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Some actually were evidence based, such as opium laws. There was a big public health problem with opium a few centuries back - complicated with politics and economics of opium trade. Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules. Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.
    - J-dawg 8y ago
      Thanks for the correction, I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement. However I think my point still stands. The regulation of newer drugs seems to be dictated by ideology more than anything else. In many ways we've gone backwards. I'm reminded of David Nutt, who was sacked from his job as UK Chief Drug Advisor, simply because the evidence he quoted disagreed with the government's rhetoric.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      It's still immensely hypocritical to claim that these drugs cause harm and death while giving a pass - and sometimes subsidies and tax breaks - to the commercial alcohol and tobacco dealers. There is literally no argument that can be made about the dangers of psychedelics that can't be applied to alcohol addiction. Put crudely, alcohol really fucks people up. Conversely the reality is that many supposedly respectable people are high on coke and other drugs. Mandatory drug testing for politicians and CEOs would reveal all kinds of interesting recreational habits. A cynic might wonder if the use of these drugs is actually a status symbol, and if legalisation would remove some of the thrill of being able to use illegal drugs with impunity.
    - Sir_Substance 8y ago

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.

J-dawg 8y ago
In what way are they anything other than speculative? Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places). They are based on ideologically driven speculation about the imagined consequences of legalisation.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Some actually were evidence based, such as opium laws. There was a big public health problem with opium a few centuries back - complicated with politics and economics of opium trade. Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules. Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.
  - J-dawg 8y ago
    Thanks for the correction, I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement. However I think my point still stands. The regulation of newer drugs seems to be dictated by ideology more than anything else. In many ways we've gone backwards. I'm reminded of David Nutt, who was sacked from his job as UK Chief Drug Advisor, simply because the evidence he quoted disagreed with the government's rhetoric.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    It's still immensely hypocritical to claim that these drugs cause harm and death while giving a pass - and sometimes subsidies and tax breaks - to the commercial alcohol and tobacco dealers. There is literally no argument that can be made about the dangers of psychedelics that can't be applied to alcohol addiction. Put crudely, alcohol really fucks people up. Conversely the reality is that many supposedly respectable people are high on coke and other drugs. Mandatory drug testing for politicians and CEOs would reveal all kinds of interesting recreational habits. A cynic might wonder if the use of these drugs is actually a status symbol, and if legalisation would remove some of the thrill of being able to use illegal drugs with impunity.
  - Sir_Substance 8y ago