10 ms·

> 20 years for each one That is incredible. For a crime that harms noone.

HenryKissinger 6y ago
I mean, the organized crime groups that sell these drugs do harm people, by way of murders, human trafficking, violent crimes and property crimes. Funding criminals and terrorists is surely worthy of punishment, do you not agree? But I agree that twenty years is excessive. A week of prison or two would be enough.
- jakemal 6y ago
  The only reason such an inhumane black market can exist is because no one is allowed to produce it legally. I would argue regulators are responsible for the harm caused by the trade.
  - grayhatter 6y ago
    No, you have your logic backwards. The conclusion that with lax drug laws, there'd be less violence associated with drug manufacturing and selling is correct. But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. If I outlaw [drug], I'm not responsible because you kill someone trying to sell [drug].
    - theptip 6y ago
      I disagree. If you take [action], and it was a necessary and sufficient condition for [consequence], then you are morally responsible for that consequence. (Sure, the individuals committing crimes in this concrete case are also morally respoinsible). In this case, I think it is correct to say that the laws cause violence, since that violence would not be happening otherwise. There is a common trope that criminals sit down and decide what crime they will commit, and decide that drug dealing is the best one. In fact, that is backwards; if the TAM of crime is cut by 10x, then there are fewer jobs, and at the margin some will stop. And in the other direction, if there is no longer easy money to be made by selling drugs, then fewer would find their way into the drug business in the first place. See prohibition in the USA for a natural experiment that supports my claims here.
      - grayhatter 6y ago
        > I disagree. If you take [action], and it was a necessary and sufficient condition for [consequence], That's exactly the thing though isn't it. Marijuana is (was) illegal, and has VERY LITTLE amount of violent crime related with its market. Making something illegal isn't enough to induce violence alone. So the [action] of (making drugs illegal) itself alone isn't enough to make [consequence] of (additional violence) to be a certainty. Or, consider the simple case. I insult you, you punch me. You clearly wouldn't have punched me if I didn't insult you. Who's at fault here?
        mlyle 6y ago
        Actually, substantial cartel activity was associated with marijuana, with significant violence associated with production in Sinaloa and transport into the US. It was a huge fraction of cartel activity, both in volume and dollar value. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/legal-marijuana-medical-use-crime-rate-plummets-us-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/legal-marijuan... The main reason cartels didn't take over entirely was A) there are few effective barriers to production, B) the low density of the product favors domestic supply, and C) making high quality product is time consuming and logistically complicated.
        cik2e 6y ago
        And there is still violence associated with marijuana in CA because about 80% of the market is still underground due to the extreme difficulty of navigating the current regulations. There is plenty of reading material on this.
    - quickthrowman 6y ago
      > But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. This is untrue. The vast majority of the US drug trade is done without violence. There’s violence in the powder/pill drug game because the profit margins are so high, creating an immense amount of competition. Sometimes you can 5-10x your money off powder, that isn’t really possible with marijuana or lsd, unless you are the grower or chemist. There’s very little violence in the marijuana and hallucinogen markets.
      - grayhatter 6y ago
        You're correct, I was speaking somewhat abstractly, and only meant to include the smaller subset of the drug market that has a large amount of violence associated with it.
      - cik2e 6y ago
        You’re forgetting about coke, heroin and meth, and the massive amount of related violence down the supply chain.
        quickthrowman 6y ago
        Did you read my post? The following is a direct quote: > There’s violence in the powder/pill drug game because the profit margins are so high, creating an immense amount of competition. All 3 of those drugs are powders, so no, I didn’t forget those.
    - throwlogon 6y ago
      I disagree as well. The violence is an unintended consequence, but it's also a known consequence, and has to be taken into account. You can't separate the good and bad consequences of a decision and wave off the negative ones because they manifest themselves indirectly.
    - the_other 6y ago
      The laws don’t directly cause the violence, by they do create an environment in which violence is more likely (or violence around drug manufacture and trade).
      - quickthrowman 6y ago
        Absolutely. Violence related to drug dealing is a result on the insane profit margins on heroin, cocaine, and meth. It’s possible to make 70-90% net profit on cocaine if you can get it at wholesale, which is nuts. Of course people will kill each other for the chance to make 90 cents on the dollar. If you bought some Chinese fentanyl and made “heroin” I bet it’s closer to 95-99% net, imagine having a money machine that spit out 20 dollars for every dollar you put in. No wonder people kill each other over drugs.
        grayhatter 6y ago
        > Of course people will kill each other for the chance to make 90 cents on the dollar. I was going to argue with you. Something something... not everyone is that bad. But then I considered all the harm large corporations do... Shit man wtf is wrong with humans?
        quickthrowman 6y ago
        I almost added a section about how corporations have killed (United Fruit, Congo Free State, and others) and would kill for those margins if the activity was profitable to offset the repercussions from killing, but left it out. I’m glad you noticed the similarity without it being explicitly mentioned.
        kingkawn 6y ago
        Our moral reasoning is so jammed full of the remnants of imperial dogma that we cannot make a coherent moral argument to one another that resonates beyond self interest. We end up with a world where normal human behavior is stigmatized, and once that happens there’s no meaningful way to actually discuss what should be stigmatized.
    - jonahx 6y ago
      I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't seem so clear cut to me. Let's say: I have a choice to outlaw drug X or not. I can infer with near certainty that this policy will lead to a black market run by violence that gets people killed. Nevertheless, I outlaw drug X. People get killed. What responsibility do I bear? I honestly don't know, but neither "none" nor "100%" sounds right to me.
      - grayhatter 6y ago
        It's not clear cut, but the metrics chosen are important. If you care about drug use more than violence, it does seem to be clear cut. Same for the inverse. You bear no responsibility. Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions. I have a kid, I raise him to the best of my ability, and commit no egregious mistakes. He grows up and murders someone. Am I at fault? Obviously not, just because I'm a part of the equation, doesn't mean I also should be assigned blame. If I didn't have a kid, [person] would still be alive. That doesn't mean I'm responsible.
        drwiggly 6y ago
        That isn't the same. After you raised your kid you don't control their environment. Does an environment contribute to individuals actions? Consider the thin blue line. Populations under duress and their cooperation with authorities.
        pessimizer 6y ago
        That parents' behavior has no effect on their children is not a universal belief. I think that a belief that one bears no blame for what one's children do is a way to inevitably raise terrible children. That's like not having any responsibility for whether the product you built works, or is toxic. edit: blame isn't exclusive; everybody can have 100% of it. Although IMO blaming children for what they've done (however you define the age of majority) is almost entirely scapegoating. You might as well convict a dog or a pig as an adult if you would convict a 13 year old.
    - parineum 6y ago
      > But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. The laws prevent relying of the police in protecting your business with violence. The law creates jobs where violent people excel but those same violent people would not necessarily be violent without it, they may also be really good pianists, it just doesn't pay as well. If you pass that law knowing full well that it will create a violent black market, you certainly are responsible when it does.
      - grayhatter 6y ago
        > The laws prevent relying of the police in protecting your business with violence. The law creates jobs where violent people excel but those same violent people would not necessarily be violent without it, they may also be really good pianists, it just doesn't pay as well. 100% agreed. > If you pass that law knowing full well that it will create a violent black market, you certainly are responsible when it does. I'm not sure you could say knowing full well. At least not when the laws were enacted. And knowing that it could create a black market, isn't the same. Also, if your calculations also lead you to believe that you could control the market, keeping the violence to a small minimum. You're at worst responsible for a small mistake in calculation. Not the violence that you were unable to predict. The argument of who's to blame currently is the people with access to all the information who still refuse to act.
        8note 6y ago
        At the time of beginning the war on drugs, there was already examples to take from prohibition. This calculation seems negligent. Like, I could shoot you in the face, and it wouldnt be my responsibility if you died. I could only know that it's a possibility that you could die, not that you would definitely die
    - sesuximo 6y ago
      You’re not responsible legally/morally, but you did create an incentive for those things to happen
      - grayhatter 6y ago
        Not incentive, but environment. Yeah that's why drug laws are worse than drugs. Drugs do destroy lives, and cause real societal harm. But it was never as destructive as what making it illegal has been able to achieve.
    - primroot 6y ago
      Everyone responding here shared a similar opinion regarding the idea of laws being responsible for the violence, so let me share another problem where the laws play a role, namely legal dangerous fake substitutes. Take for instance 25I-NBOMe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe#Legal_status It remained (has remained?) legal in many places for more than a decade.
      - zkms 6y ago
        Yeah, "designer drugs" -- the products of someone trying to make a drug that works on the same systems but is different enough in structure from anything on a Controlled Substances list are bad news. The problem lies in the fact that many drugs with long histories of human use (opium, marijuana) have long histories of human use, and so they've been tested extensively and are known not to produce horrid adverse effects. They might not be the global maximum of safety and efficacy, but they sure are likely to be close to it. Trying to replicate a compound that has been tested for efficacy and safety for decades to millenia (and not being allowed to just change tiny things on the molecule) is not something that is likely to give results close to the original. Other examples of that include synthetic cannabinoids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabinoids#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabinoids#Toxicit...), which are a lot more dangerous than actual marijuana. i'm not claiming marijuana is harmless, just, like, synthetic cannabinoids really are just that bad. Ironically, the obverse task -- trying to create a molecule that acts on similar neurobiological targets as an illegal drug but doesnt get people "high" or look like a molecule from an illegal drug -- can be similarly fraught. The flagrant example is BIA 10-2474, an experimental drug meant to target the endocannabinoid system in a roundabout way: not by directly activating receptors, but by inhibiting an enzyme that degrades the endogenous chemicals that activate endocannabinoid receptors, which would, ideally, have similar effects as directly activating those receptors. A trial of it killed one person and irreversibly and severely neurologically damaged a few others. This isn't to claim that FAAH inhibition is doomed to failure, just that safely messing around with sublimely complex neurochemistry is difficult; adding constraints like "must not make people feel high" or "must not look like Prohibited Molecules" makes it needlessly harder.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      Let's not pretend that "outlaw [drug]" doesn't mean "threaten to harm or kill people distributing [drug]." If you sanitize it into an abstraction, it intentionally conceals who is starting the cycle of violence.
- defterGoose 6y ago
  > Funding criminals and terrorists is surely worthy of punishment, do you not agree? Greater society does. Unless, or course, those criminals and terrorists are the wealthy leadership of large private businesses and the crimes are committed either overseas upon marginalized people, or over a long enough timescale so as to be virtually "unprovable".
- cheschire 6y ago
  Ugh. Your post is a perfect example of a valid argument, and yet a bunch of people downvote you instead of just having a conversation. Two sheets is at least a few hundred tabs and that is definitely within the realm of possession with intent to sell, legally speaking. And your conclusion wasn't even harsh like "they earned 20" or anything. You clearly said the punishment was harsh for the crime. Jeez people, learn to communicate without the arrows.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    That’s because everybody here already knows that keeping drugs illegal is what is actually funding criminal organizations.
    - BTCOG 6y ago
      Bingo. Plus, as it pertains to LSD itself, what he said was patently false. LSD has always been largely distributed among intellectual circles for decent low prices and among hippie circles. Real LSD is not meth, and it's not heroin. It wasn't and isn't trafficked by cartels. Maybe fake synthetic chemicals being sold as "acid," but not pure LSD-25. It was a perpetuated government War on Drugs (tm) myth.
    - grayhatter 6y ago
      https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
    - melq 6y ago
      No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. The law may be responsible for creating an environment that allows such groups to prosper, no argument there. But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise.
      - wayneftw 6y ago
        > No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. No, that's a nonsensical sentence. Profits are funding. What I said is correct: The law is what is actualizing the profits (or the funding). Without the law there would be no profits, no funding. Ergo, the law is causing the funds to happen. Profits are not self-caused. They don't just happen by themselves. > But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. Yes it does. Morals are subjective. I'm absolutely fine with it. These criminal organizations are far less violent and less criminal than my own government which I fund by paying taxes. Furthermore, the vast majority of people buying illicit drugs are not buying directly from violent criminal organizations or even non-violent criminal organizations. They're buying from a friend who buys from a friend who buys from a friend who might buy from a criminal organization (who might be violent). > In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise. You (and them) made poor arguments based on your ill-formed opinions and presented no evidence. You both deserve the downvotes.
- nsilvestri 6y ago
  LSD is not associated with major organized crime groups like cartels. It tends to be manufactured domestically in the Pacific Northwest and in semi-rural locations across the US.
- platistocrates 6y ago
  Criminals also profit from legitimate businesses. This comment is irrelevant.
- ohmybash 6y ago
  So let's prosecute the people who are committing murders, human trafficking, and property crime, which are actually crimes. Possessing a psychedelic is not any of those things.
perl4ever 6y ago
Having no experience with it, nonetheless, the popular impression of LSD is that an incredibly small amount of it can be on something and inadvertently ingested, so I can see the perspective that making, having, or dealing it is an unacceptable risk of harm to people who didn't consent. Is there some reason that's unrealistic?
- site-packages1 6y ago
  It is an unacceptable risk for people who didn’t consent, but that’s a different matter. We should punish people who give others dangerous things without consent.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Well, you can get into trouble if you start playing around with radioactive material, too. I think "The Radioactive Boy Scout" has been mentioned on HN a few times. I think a reason why dangerous things are regulated is because even though they don't always lead to harm, the harm can be grave and impossible to undo. Even if an unexpected trip doesn't technically lead to permanent brain damage, if the behavior were misinterpreted (for instance as a psychotic episode) it could permanently wreck a person's life.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      As long as you think the same arguments apply to toilet bowl cleaners, oven cleaners, windshield washer fluid, tylenol/paracetamol, antifreeze and visine, this makes sense.
      - abnry 6y ago
        People don't experiment with household cleaners like they do with pyschoactive drugs.
        itsananderson 6y ago
        Oh? https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/covid-19/learn-about-covid-19/clorox-statement-on-the-proper-use-of-disinfecting-products/ https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/covid-19/learn-about-covid-...
yaktubi 6y ago
Not sure I’d agree with “harms noone.” I have taken LSD and easily walk in the middle of the road with no cause for concern. Imagine a child accidentally eating some of it, etc. Could be worse than a loaded gun. I’m all for legalizing natural stuff (mushrooms, cannabis, even coca plants) but once chemists start concentrating things or turning them into droplets it becomes extremely dangerous. For instance, mushrooms grow on poop (and taste like sh*t), coca leaves are probably bitter to the taste (and not agreeable). So not much incentive to accidentally eat them. One tab—the whole sheet even—of LSD tasteless and odourless, even hard to detect.
- sesuximo 6y ago
  ... and loaded guns are legal!
- reikonomusha 6y ago
  Imagine a child eating Tide Pods too. Or eating blood thinners. Or ...
  - craftinator 6y ago
    Eating nails! We need to ban nails immediately. 20 years prison per nail!
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  My rebuttal is “alcohol”. That settles any safety related debate, let’s move on. I’m dismissing “think of the children” and “equivalent to a tool designed to kill” (and that tool is completely legal in the US) lines as obvious trolls, I encourage anyone else rebutting to ignore that as well. Edit: To dismiss your argument that you edited in about dosage size and accidental ingestion. If LSD was legal, manufacturers would want to prevent accidental ingestion and design an RoA that isn’t a tiny tab of LSD. Keeping it legal means it will remain as is now. You’re arguing for legalization and don’t even realize it. Furthermore, a quick google search shows some academic papers from the 70s about children accidentally ingesting LSD, and a news report from 2016 where a child may have ingested LSD accidentally, but there’s very little evidence that it’s a problem.
abnry 6y ago
Taking drugs and potentially becoming addicted has societal externalities. We currently have a opioid overdose epidemic in the US which taxes the emergency response system, not to mention the pain it causes to friends and family. There's a reason opiods are regulated in the medical industry (some would say too little).
- pragmatic 6y ago
  Addicted to LSD?
- api 6y ago
  LSD and opioids are very very different things, and a major driver of the opioid epidemic is certain companies in the pharmaceutical industry legally pushing it. IMHO if alcohol and nicotine are legal, then anything "soft" that is not particularly addictive should be legal. It's fundamentally unjust to lock people up for using or having substances that are for the most part less dangerous than entirely legal and socially acceptable substances. Alcohol is actually kind of nasty stuff if you look at the real statistics, especially if used in excess. I'm not claiming LSD is absolutely harmless, just that it's not physically addictive at all and not nearly harmful enough to merit the harsh criminalization and heavy sentences it receives. LSD can be safe and rather interesting if used occasionally but heavy use or use by people with pre-existing psychotic tendencies can be psychologically dangerous. My personal opinion is that drugs like LSD should be subject to some kind of licensing regime similar to other hazardous activities like driving a car, flying a plane, or owning and using firearms (in some states). I would also be in favor of blanket bans or at least heavy restrictions on any advertising for drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and pharmaceuticals.
  - jason0597 6y ago
    >My personal opinion is that drugs like LSD should be subject to some kind of licensing regime similar to other hazardous activities like driving a car, flying a plane, or owning and using firearms (in some states). I disagree. Driving a car or flying a plane can directly harm others, so the licensing process makes sense. Consuming LSD though? It doesn't directly harm others when I consume it.
pjc50 6y ago
Probably a good time to remind people that the cops who killed Breonna Taylor haven't yet been prosecuted.
api 6y ago
Meanwhile rapists and child molesters often serve only a few years, if that...

I mean, the organized crime groups that sell these drugs do harm people, by way of murders, human trafficking, violent crimes and property crimes. Funding criminals and terrorists is surely worthy of punishment, do you not agree? But I agree that twenty years is excessive. A week of prison or two would be enough.

jakemal 6y ago
The only reason such an inhumane black market can exist is because no one is allowed to produce it legally. I would argue regulators are responsible for the harm caused by the trade.
- grayhatter 6y ago
  No, you have your logic backwards. The conclusion that with lax drug laws, there'd be less violence associated with drug manufacturing and selling is correct. But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. If I outlaw [drug], I'm not responsible because you kill someone trying to sell [drug].
  - theptip 6y ago
    I disagree. If you take [action], and it was a necessary and sufficient condition for [consequence], then you are morally responsible for that consequence. (Sure, the individuals committing crimes in this concrete case are also morally respoinsible). In this case, I think it is correct to say that the laws cause violence, since that violence would not be happening otherwise. There is a common trope that criminals sit down and decide what crime they will commit, and decide that drug dealing is the best one. In fact, that is backwards; if the TAM of crime is cut by 10x, then there are fewer jobs, and at the margin some will stop. And in the other direction, if there is no longer easy money to be made by selling drugs, then fewer would find their way into the drug business in the first place. See prohibition in the USA for a natural experiment that supports my claims here.
    - grayhatter 6y ago
      > I disagree. If you take [action], and it was a necessary and sufficient condition for [consequence], That's exactly the thing though isn't it. Marijuana is (was) illegal, and has VERY LITTLE amount of violent crime related with its market. Making something illegal isn't enough to induce violence alone. So the [action] of (making drugs illegal) itself alone isn't enough to make [consequence] of (additional violence) to be a certainty. Or, consider the simple case. I insult you, you punch me. You clearly wouldn't have punched me if I didn't insult you. Who's at fault here?
      - mlyle 6y ago
        Actually, substantial cartel activity was associated with marijuana, with significant violence associated with production in Sinaloa and transport into the US. It was a huge fraction of cartel activity, both in volume and dollar value. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/legal-marijuana-medical-use-crime-rate-plummets-us-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/legal-marijuan... The main reason cartels didn't take over entirely was A) there are few effective barriers to production, B) the low density of the product favors domestic supply, and C) making high quality product is time consuming and logistically complicated.
      - cik2e 6y ago
        And there is still violence associated with marijuana in CA because about 80% of the market is still underground due to the extreme difficulty of navigating the current regulations. There is plenty of reading material on this.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    > But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. This is untrue. The vast majority of the US drug trade is done without violence. There’s violence in the powder/pill drug game because the profit margins are so high, creating an immense amount of competition. Sometimes you can 5-10x your money off powder, that isn’t really possible with marijuana or lsd, unless you are the grower or chemist. There’s very little violence in the marijuana and hallucinogen markets.
    - grayhatter 6y ago
      You're correct, I was speaking somewhat abstractly, and only meant to include the smaller subset of the drug market that has a large amount of violence associated with it.
    - cik2e 6y ago
      You’re forgetting about coke, heroin and meth, and the massive amount of related violence down the supply chain.
      - quickthrowman 6y ago
        Did you read my post? The following is a direct quote: > There’s violence in the powder/pill drug game because the profit margins are so high, creating an immense amount of competition. All 3 of those drugs are powders, so no, I didn’t forget those.
  - throwlogon 6y ago
    I disagree as well. The violence is an unintended consequence, but it's also a known consequence, and has to be taken into account. You can't separate the good and bad consequences of a decision and wave off the negative ones because they manifest themselves indirectly.
  - the_other 6y ago
    The laws don’t directly cause the violence, by they do create an environment in which violence is more likely (or violence around drug manufacture and trade).
    - quickthrowman 6y ago
      Absolutely. Violence related to drug dealing is a result on the insane profit margins on heroin, cocaine, and meth. It’s possible to make 70-90% net profit on cocaine if you can get it at wholesale, which is nuts. Of course people will kill each other for the chance to make 90 cents on the dollar. If you bought some Chinese fentanyl and made “heroin” I bet it’s closer to 95-99% net, imagine having a money machine that spit out 20 dollars for every dollar you put in. No wonder people kill each other over drugs.
      - grayhatter 6y ago
        > Of course people will kill each other for the chance to make 90 cents on the dollar. I was going to argue with you. Something something... not everyone is that bad. But then I considered all the harm large corporations do... Shit man wtf is wrong with humans?
        quickthrowman 6y ago
        I almost added a section about how corporations have killed (United Fruit, Congo Free State, and others) and would kill for those margins if the activity was profitable to offset the repercussions from killing, but left it out. I’m glad you noticed the similarity without it being explicitly mentioned.
        kingkawn 6y ago
        Our moral reasoning is so jammed full of the remnants of imperial dogma that we cannot make a coherent moral argument to one another that resonates beyond self interest. We end up with a world where normal human behavior is stigmatized, and once that happens there’s no meaningful way to actually discuss what should be stigmatized.
  - jonahx 6y ago
    I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't seem so clear cut to me. Let's say: I have a choice to outlaw drug X or not. I can infer with near certainty that this policy will lead to a black market run by violence that gets people killed. Nevertheless, I outlaw drug X. People get killed. What responsibility do I bear? I honestly don't know, but neither "none" nor "100%" sounds right to me.
    - grayhatter 6y ago
      It's not clear cut, but the metrics chosen are important. If you care about drug use more than violence, it does seem to be clear cut. Same for the inverse. You bear no responsibility. Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions. I have a kid, I raise him to the best of my ability, and commit no egregious mistakes. He grows up and murders someone. Am I at fault? Obviously not, just because I'm a part of the equation, doesn't mean I also should be assigned blame. If I didn't have a kid, [person] would still be alive. That doesn't mean I'm responsible.
      - drwiggly 6y ago
        That isn't the same. After you raised your kid you don't control their environment. Does an environment contribute to individuals actions? Consider the thin blue line. Populations under duress and their cooperation with authorities.
      - pessimizer 6y ago
        That parents' behavior has no effect on their children is not a universal belief. I think that a belief that one bears no blame for what one's children do is a way to inevitably raise terrible children. That's like not having any responsibility for whether the product you built works, or is toxic. edit: blame isn't exclusive; everybody can have 100% of it. Although IMO blaming children for what they've done (however you define the age of majority) is almost entirely scapegoating. You might as well convict a dog or a pig as an adult if you would convict a 13 year old.
  - parineum 6y ago
    > But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. The laws prevent relying of the police in protecting your business with violence. The law creates jobs where violent people excel but those same violent people would not necessarily be violent without it, they may also be really good pianists, it just doesn't pay as well. If you pass that law knowing full well that it will create a violent black market, you certainly are responsible when it does.
    - grayhatter 6y ago
      > The laws prevent relying of the police in protecting your business with violence. The law creates jobs where violent people excel but those same violent people would not necessarily be violent without it, they may also be really good pianists, it just doesn't pay as well. 100% agreed. > If you pass that law knowing full well that it will create a violent black market, you certainly are responsible when it does. I'm not sure you could say knowing full well. At least not when the laws were enacted. And knowing that it could create a black market, isn't the same. Also, if your calculations also lead you to believe that you could control the market, keeping the violence to a small minimum. You're at worst responsible for a small mistake in calculation. Not the violence that you were unable to predict. The argument of who's to blame currently is the people with access to all the information who still refuse to act.
      - 8note 6y ago
        At the time of beginning the war on drugs, there was already examples to take from prohibition. This calculation seems negligent. Like, I could shoot you in the face, and it wouldnt be my responsibility if you died. I could only know that it's a possibility that you could die, not that you would definitely die
  - sesuximo 6y ago
    You’re not responsible legally/morally, but you did create an incentive for those things to happen
    - grayhatter 6y ago
      Not incentive, but environment. Yeah that's why drug laws are worse than drugs. Drugs do destroy lives, and cause real societal harm. But it was never as destructive as what making it illegal has been able to achieve.
  - primroot 6y ago
    Everyone responding here shared a similar opinion regarding the idea of laws being responsible for the violence, so let me share another problem where the laws play a role, namely legal dangerous fake substitutes. Take for instance 25I-NBOMe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe#Legal_status It remained (has remained?) legal in many places for more than a decade.
    - zkms 6y ago
      Yeah, "designer drugs" -- the products of someone trying to make a drug that works on the same systems but is different enough in structure from anything on a Controlled Substances list are bad news. The problem lies in the fact that many drugs with long histories of human use (opium, marijuana) have long histories of human use, and so they've been tested extensively and are known not to produce horrid adverse effects. They might not be the global maximum of safety and efficacy, but they sure are likely to be close to it. Trying to replicate a compound that has been tested for efficacy and safety for decades to millenia (and not being allowed to just change tiny things on the molecule) is not something that is likely to give results close to the original. Other examples of that include synthetic cannabinoids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabinoids#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabinoids#Toxicit...), which are a lot more dangerous than actual marijuana. i'm not claiming marijuana is harmless, just, like, synthetic cannabinoids really are just that bad. Ironically, the obverse task -- trying to create a molecule that acts on similar neurobiological targets as an illegal drug but doesnt get people "high" or look like a molecule from an illegal drug -- can be similarly fraught. The flagrant example is BIA 10-2474, an experimental drug meant to target the endocannabinoid system in a roundabout way: not by directly activating receptors, but by inhibiting an enzyme that degrades the endogenous chemicals that activate endocannabinoid receptors, which would, ideally, have similar effects as directly activating those receptors. A trial of it killed one person and irreversibly and severely neurologically damaged a few others. This isn't to claim that FAAH inhibition is doomed to failure, just that safely messing around with sublimely complex neurochemistry is difficult; adding constraints like "must not make people feel high" or "must not look like Prohibited Molecules" makes it needlessly harder.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Let's not pretend that "outlaw [drug]" doesn't mean "threaten to harm or kill people distributing [drug]." If you sanitize it into an abstraction, it intentionally conceals who is starting the cycle of violence.
defterGoose 6y ago
> Funding criminals and terrorists is surely worthy of punishment, do you not agree? Greater society does. Unless, or course, those criminals and terrorists are the wealthy leadership of large private businesses and the crimes are committed either overseas upon marginalized people, or over a long enough timescale so as to be virtually "unprovable".
cheschire 6y ago
Ugh. Your post is a perfect example of a valid argument, and yet a bunch of people downvote you instead of just having a conversation. Two sheets is at least a few hundred tabs and that is definitely within the realm of possession with intent to sell, legally speaking. And your conclusion wasn't even harsh like "they earned 20" or anything. You clearly said the punishment was harsh for the crime. Jeez people, learn to communicate without the arrows.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  That’s because everybody here already knows that keeping drugs illegal is what is actually funding criminal organizations.
  - BTCOG 6y ago
    Bingo. Plus, as it pertains to LSD itself, what he said was patently false. LSD has always been largely distributed among intellectual circles for decent low prices and among hippie circles. Real LSD is not meth, and it's not heroin. It wasn't and isn't trafficked by cartels. Maybe fake synthetic chemicals being sold as "acid," but not pure LSD-25. It was a perpetuated government War on Drugs (tm) myth.
  - grayhatter 6y ago
    https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
  - melq 6y ago
    No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. The law may be responsible for creating an environment that allows such groups to prosper, no argument there. But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise.
    - wayneftw 6y ago
      > No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. No, that's a nonsensical sentence. Profits are funding. What I said is correct: The law is what is actualizing the profits (or the funding). Without the law there would be no profits, no funding. Ergo, the law is causing the funds to happen. Profits are not self-caused. They don't just happen by themselves. > But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. Yes it does. Morals are subjective. I'm absolutely fine with it. These criminal organizations are far less violent and less criminal than my own government which I fund by paying taxes. Furthermore, the vast majority of people buying illicit drugs are not buying directly from violent criminal organizations or even non-violent criminal organizations. They're buying from a friend who buys from a friend who buys from a friend who might buy from a criminal organization (who might be violent). > In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise. You (and them) made poor arguments based on your ill-formed opinions and presented no evidence. You both deserve the downvotes.
nsilvestri 6y ago
LSD is not associated with major organized crime groups like cartels. It tends to be manufactured domestically in the Pacific Northwest and in semi-rural locations across the US.
platistocrates 6y ago
Criminals also profit from legitimate businesses. This comment is irrelevant.
ohmybash 6y ago
So let's prosecute the people who are committing murders, human trafficking, and property crime, which are actually crimes. Possessing a psychedelic is not any of those things.

perl4ever 6y ago

Having no experience with it, nonetheless, the popular impression of LSD is that an incredibly small amount of it can be on something and inadvertently ingested, so I can see the perspective that making, having, or dealing it is an unacceptable risk of harm to people who didn't consent. Is there some reason that's unrealistic?

site-packages1 6y ago
It is an unacceptable risk for people who didn’t consent, but that’s a different matter. We should punish people who give others dangerous things without consent.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Well, you can get into trouble if you start playing around with radioactive material, too. I think "The Radioactive Boy Scout" has been mentioned on HN a few times. I think a reason why dangerous things are regulated is because even though they don't always lead to harm, the harm can be grave and impossible to undo. Even if an unexpected trip doesn't technically lead to permanent brain damage, if the behavior were misinterpreted (for instance as a psychotic episode) it could permanently wreck a person's life.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    As long as you think the same arguments apply to toilet bowl cleaners, oven cleaners, windshield washer fluid, tylenol/paracetamol, antifreeze and visine, this makes sense.
    - abnry 6y ago
      People don't experiment with household cleaners like they do with pyschoactive drugs.
      - itsananderson 6y ago
        Oh? https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/covid-19/learn-about-covid-19/clorox-statement-on-the-proper-use-of-disinfecting-products/ https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/covid-19/learn-about-covid-...

yaktubi 6y ago

Not sure I’d agree with “harms noone.” I have taken LSD and easily walk in the middle of the road with no cause for concern. Imagine a child accidentally eating some of it, etc. Could be worse than a loaded gun. I’m all for legalizing natural stuff (mushrooms, cannabis, even coca plants) but once chemists start concentrating things or turning them into droplets it becomes extremely dangerous. For instance, mushrooms grow on poop (and taste like sh*t), coca leaves are probably bitter to the taste (and not agreeable). So not much incentive to accidentally eat them. One tab—the whole sheet even—of LSD tasteless and odourless, even hard to detect.

sesuximo 6y ago
... and loaded guns are legal!
reikonomusha 6y ago
Imagine a child eating Tide Pods too. Or eating blood thinners. Or ...
- craftinator 6y ago
  Eating nails! We need to ban nails immediately. 20 years prison per nail!
quickthrowman 6y ago
My rebuttal is “alcohol”. That settles any safety related debate, let’s move on. I’m dismissing “think of the children” and “equivalent to a tool designed to kill” (and that tool is completely legal in the US) lines as obvious trolls, I encourage anyone else rebutting to ignore that as well. Edit: To dismiss your argument that you edited in about dosage size and accidental ingestion. If LSD was legal, manufacturers would want to prevent accidental ingestion and design an RoA that isn’t a tiny tab of LSD. Keeping it legal means it will remain as is now. You’re arguing for legalization and don’t even realize it. Furthermore, a quick google search shows some academic papers from the 70s about children accidentally ingesting LSD, and a news report from 2016 where a child may have ingested LSD accidentally, but there’s very little evidence that it’s a problem.

abnry 6y ago

Taking drugs and potentially becoming addicted has societal externalities. We currently have a opioid overdose epidemic in the US which taxes the emergency response system, not to mention the pain it causes to friends and family. There's a reason opiods are regulated in the medical industry (some would say too little).

pragmatic 6y ago
Addicted to LSD?
api 6y ago
LSD and opioids are very very different things, and a major driver of the opioid epidemic is certain companies in the pharmaceutical industry legally pushing it. IMHO if alcohol and nicotine are legal, then anything "soft" that is not particularly addictive should be legal. It's fundamentally unjust to lock people up for using or having substances that are for the most part less dangerous than entirely legal and socially acceptable substances. Alcohol is actually kind of nasty stuff if you look at the real statistics, especially if used in excess. I'm not claiming LSD is absolutely harmless, just that it's not physically addictive at all and not nearly harmful enough to merit the harsh criminalization and heavy sentences it receives. LSD can be safe and rather interesting if used occasionally but heavy use or use by people with pre-existing psychotic tendencies can be psychologically dangerous. My personal opinion is that drugs like LSD should be subject to some kind of licensing regime similar to other hazardous activities like driving a car, flying a plane, or owning and using firearms (in some states). I would also be in favor of blanket bans or at least heavy restrictions on any advertising for drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and pharmaceuticals.
- jason0597 6y ago
  >My personal opinion is that drugs like LSD should be subject to some kind of licensing regime similar to other hazardous activities like driving a car, flying a plane, or owning and using firearms (in some states). I disagree. Driving a car or flying a plane can directly harm others, so the licensing process makes sense. Consuming LSD though? It doesn't directly harm others when I consume it.

pjc50 6y ago

Probably a good time to remind people that the cops who killed Breonna Taylor haven't yet been prosecuted.

api 6y ago

Meanwhile rapists and child molesters often serve only a few years, if that...