4 ms·
I don't know how the government can claim with a straight face that these substances have no known medical use, and are harmful. That's the criteria I think for
by tibbon 8y ago
I don't know how the government can claim with a straight face that these substances have no known medical use, and are harmful. That's the criteria I think for Schedule 1, but there are clearly known uses for them, and the harm is relatively low.
I really don't like thinking, "the government just wants to ban dangerous thoughts" but mushrooms - really? Compared to alcohol they are so incredibly safe.
- Nasrudith 8y agoInstitutional inertia is one hell of a drug. Even putting aside the sinister motivations people are often very reluctant to change even in the face of major evidence - especially if it undermines their self worth to admit being wrong.
- loceng 8y agoInstitutional inertia reminds me of the process of indoctrination, learned through memorization and not through experience and critical thinking. It's true too, that this process can result in good people with no sinister motivations falling into certain traps.
- turtlecloud 8y agoI do think the government knows that they are harmful. The main fear I think comes from the majority of people who are not that bright and can not cognitively handle the type of thinking that comes from psychedelic use. Imagine if you just listened to the gov your whole life and then after taking psychedelics u start questioning what is good/bad , what is true/false. Before you know it, flat earth theory is real.
- 09bjb 8y agoPersonally I'd be willing to risk open-mindedness spreading to people in society that "might not be able to handle it" rather than slide further into a dystopia where we're kept stupid on purpose because we might be harder to control if we thought for ourselves.