3 ms·

The reasons why tobacco and alcohol are legal are mostly historical and they are basically the only exceptions. There are many drugs that kill people but keep

by ketzu 6y ago

The reasons why tobacco and alcohol are legal are mostly historical and they are basically the only exceptions. There are many drugs that kill people but keep them subdued that are illegal. It seems to me that is not the reason for which are legal and which ones are not.

Retric 6y ago
I agree with tobacco. However, alcohol is legal in part because it’s easy to make. Even prisoners often start making alcohol let alone the general public.
- ketzu 6y ago
  While I agree that this plays a part, as it's what made it so popular to begin with, drugs 'directly' derived from plants are quite easy to make, too.
eof 6y ago
That’s an over simplistic and not realistic view. Marihuana had a similar history as tobacco, opiates go back thousands of years, caffeine is deemed fine, alcohol was actually illegal for years, etc. Considering the counter culture and anti war (and thus anti military industrial) sentiment being highly correlated with hippies getting lit—I think it’s impossible not to come to the conclusion that the powers that be consider mind expanding drugs to be a threat to the order of things.
- ketzu 6y ago
  Yes I was simplifying quite a lot. But "historical" wasn't just meant as "was there already", even though it plays a huge part. As far as I know, marijuana was mostly made illegal in the 30s and earlier in the US, mostly due to racist origins and with arguments mostly opposite those of hippies (e.g., creating bloodlust). I forgot about Caffeine, that's true, as it is often not considered a drug by many (or at least not taught as one). But it's also not one of a dulling effect, as far as I can tell at least. That they tried to make alcohol illegal and failed because of it's societal acceptance is another indicator that the original claim is not so obviously true: > It's more acceptable and state-sanctioned to sell drugs that kill people while keeping them subdued, than ones that keep them alive and open their minds. Overall it feels more that the general Zeitgeist of regulating narcotics failed on alcohol but succeeded with often racist propaganda for other popular drugs. But that's just my understanding and I am not very well versed in any of those topics, so I'd be happy to listen to a better explanation. (I wouldn't be surprised that anti-establishment gatherings with strong drug usage correlation wouldn't exactly make legalisation popular in the establishment. But the history article I read on that just now claimed that sentences were reduced during the 70s because of the wake of hippies.)

by ketzu 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

I agree with tobacco. However, alcohol is legal in part because it’s easy to make. Even prisoners often start making alcohol let alone the general public.

ketzu 6y ago
While I agree that this plays a part, as it's what made it so popular to begin with, drugs 'directly' derived from plants are quite easy to make, too.

eof 6y ago

That’s an over simplistic and not realistic view. Marihuana had a similar history as tobacco, opiates go back thousands of years, caffeine is deemed fine, alcohol was actually illegal for years, etc. Considering the counter culture and anti war (and thus anti military industrial) sentiment being highly correlated with hippies getting lit—I think it’s impossible not to come to the conclusion that the powers that be consider mind expanding drugs to be a threat to the order of things.

ketzu 6y ago
Yes I was simplifying quite a lot. But "historical" wasn't just meant as "was there already", even though it plays a huge part. As far as I know, marijuana was mostly made illegal in the 30s and earlier in the US, mostly due to racist origins and with arguments mostly opposite those of hippies (e.g., creating bloodlust). I forgot about Caffeine, that's true, as it is often not considered a drug by many (or at least not taught as one). But it's also not one of a dulling effect, as far as I can tell at least. That they tried to make alcohol illegal and failed because of it's societal acceptance is another indicator that the original claim is not so obviously true: > It's more acceptable and state-sanctioned to sell drugs that kill people while keeping them subdued, than ones that keep them alive and open their minds. Overall it feels more that the general Zeitgeist of regulating narcotics failed on alcohol but succeeded with often racist propaganda for other popular drugs. But that's just my understanding and I am not very well versed in any of those topics, so I'd be happy to listen to a better explanation. (I wouldn't be surprised that anti-establishment gatherings with strong drug usage correlation wouldn't exactly make legalisation popular in the establishment. But the history article I read on that just now claimed that sentences were reduced during the 70s because of the wake of hippies.)