13 ms·

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

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-...
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      Yes, I think the same argument applies to everything. That's not to say all hazards are equal or all substances need identical regulations.
      - sooheon 6y ago
        > That's not to say all hazards are equal or all substances need identical regulations. This is a non informative answer. Let's talk numbers, is 20 years a reasonable time to be incarcerated for a sheet of LSD? How many years is appropriate for a pack's worth of hand smoke, then? How about carbon monoxide from driving year round?
  - craftinator 6y ago
    Ah the whataboutism is strong here. The point is, life is inherently dangerous. We make laws to punish people for making it more dangerous. People have had massive overdoses of LSD [see Wikipedia entry for LSD], several thousand times the standard party dose, and gone on to lead normal lives. All the arguments you make are exactly the same as arguments against alcohol, but LSD is actually much safer.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    Better to combat by certainly permanently wrecking someone's life with 20 years in prison.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I think there's no reason there should be a single person on both sides of the equation, never mind arbitrary choices of the harm scenario. In a contrived utilitarian scenario, you could save 1,000 people and send one to prison, or vice versa.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    Apparently it's dead comment time, yay! But yes, some things are dangerous. LSD is less dangerous than many many legal things, such as guns, alcohol, driving, etc, so why is it illegal?
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I read Stephen King's Firestarter at an early age, so that, and other things influenced by MKULTRA, factors in to why I think LSD is scary. The other issue I have is that when people say that LSD can harm people with a predisposition to schizophrenia or whatever, it's frightening because it seems like a stereotyped thinking pattern that's useful for denying unacceptable causal hypotheses that might in fact be real.
  - samus 6y ago
    People playing around with radioactive stuff, even if they are well-intentioned, can easily mess up and contaminate themselves and others with it. Radioactivity is not detectable to any of our senses, only radiation poisoning is. Things are completely different with LSD and other drugs. You could argue that making meth is a dangerous activity in itself, but a properly regulated industry could evaporate any real need to home-brew large amounts.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    There is no LSD radiation though. It can't beam itself into your mouth. Bystanders are never inadvertently drugged.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      >Bystanders are never inadvertently drugged I don't have a counterexample, as the allegations I was reading on Wikipedia are generally of intentionally drugging people,[1][2] but I wouldn't be particularly confident in your statement; how would one know it hasn't happened? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Pont-Saint-Esprit_mass_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Pont-Saint-Esprit_mass_po... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#LSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#LSD
      - filoeleven 6y ago
        Yes. At any gathering of a certain type that’s large enough, like a music festival, you run the risk of eating or drinking something that’s been spiked with something. Most people who do so try to be up front about the “bonus content,” but because of legality they will often couch it in lingo like “space brownies” and the like. If you don’t know what that means, you could be in for a wild ride without anyone having ill intentions.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
filoeleven 6y ago
Counterpoint: PFOA / PFAS long chain polymers even at extremely low levels act as endocrine disruptors. DuPont leaks this stuff at its plants, people living near by have elevated types of specific cancers, and nothing is done. If you can get 20 years for two sheets of LSD, I’d expect life in prison for everyone at the companies who continue to leak this toxic stuff, and full payment of affected people:s medical bills, for starters. It doesn’t happen because LSD can be used recreationally, “drugs are bad,” and PFAS is only used by well-respected businesses. https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/ https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/
- nearbuy 6y ago
  Presumably they aren't dumping beyond the legal limits. That's how our system works. The EPA or other agencies attempt to determine what's safe, the government makes some regulations, and if you follow those regulations, you don't go to prison. Even if the regulations are bad.
  - yareally 6y ago
    > "Presumably they aren't dumping beyond the legal limits. That's how our system works." They have and probably still do though[1]. Lived only a couple hours from the location of the film and my wife grew up in a city on the Ohio River they were dumping chemicals into. Was in the local paper here almost weekly during the late 90s and early 00s. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)
    - nearbuy 6y ago
      That says they were dumping. It doesn't say they were breaking any government regulations. In fact, it sounds like the government was lacking regulations on PFOA.
      - yareally 6y ago
        Sure, only because the chemicals weren't regulated yet by the government (and they fought as hard as they could to keep that from happening). Funny enough, DuPont actually had its own regulations for dumping such chemicals and knowingly violated them (which became the cornerstone for the class action lawsuits against them). That said, there's plenty of cases of illegal dumping out there with chemicals that are regulated. For example: https://apnews.com/9717f8be97db4944a825088dc5eee379/US-prosecutors%3A-Water-company-illegally https://apnews.com/9717f8be97db4944a825088dc5eee379/US-prose...
ngold 6y ago
Is there a reason stealing 20 years is realistic for a victimless crime? Poisoning someone actually has serious criminal consequences.
monadic2 6y ago
Well, we don’t do much to regulate the most common date rape drug, Alcohol, so it’s not clear why we need to do so much to prevent adults from consensually taking it.
gvhst 6y ago
By what mechanism will people who didn't consent come into contact with LSD? As residue accidentally transferred by physical contact? By that logic peanuts and other tree nuts should be illegal because trances of its oils can kill those who are sensitive, unlike LSD which is pharmacologically safe. Additionally, while there are many examples of trace residues of tree nuts triggering anaphylactic shock in those not directly handling the nuts, I haven't heard of a single person accidentally ingesting LSD that wasn't willfully handling the drug (which implies consent to any accidental ingestion in my book).
- jdkee 6y ago
  https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/05/synth-repairman-lsd/ https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/05/synth-repairman-lsd/
- filoeleven 6y ago
  A friend of mine was dosed without her knowledge or consent at a festival. She thinks it was from a cup of punch she was given, input to this day can’t be sure of the route of ingestion. She was familiar with LSD and realized what was happening, but was not prepared for it and had a rough time. It’s completely irresponsible to give someone a drug without consent, outside of some forms of medical intervention, regardless of your intentions.

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-...
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Yes, I think the same argument applies to everything. That's not to say all hazards are equal or all substances need identical regulations.
    - sooheon 6y ago
      > That's not to say all hazards are equal or all substances need identical regulations. This is a non informative answer. Let's talk numbers, is 20 years a reasonable time to be incarcerated for a sheet of LSD? How many years is appropriate for a pack's worth of hand smoke, then? How about carbon monoxide from driving year round?
- craftinator 6y ago
  Ah the whataboutism is strong here. The point is, life is inherently dangerous. We make laws to punish people for making it more dangerous. People have had massive overdoses of LSD [see Wikipedia entry for LSD], several thousand times the standard party dose, and gone on to lead normal lives. All the arguments you make are exactly the same as arguments against alcohol, but LSD is actually much safer.
- MiroF 6y ago
  Better to combat by certainly permanently wrecking someone's life with 20 years in prison.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I think there's no reason there should be a single person on both sides of the equation, never mind arbitrary choices of the harm scenario. In a contrived utilitarian scenario, you could save 1,000 people and send one to prison, or vice versa.
- craftinator 6y ago
  Apparently it's dead comment time, yay! But yes, some things are dangerous. LSD is less dangerous than many many legal things, such as guns, alcohol, driving, etc, so why is it illegal?
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I read Stephen King's Firestarter at an early age, so that, and other things influenced by MKULTRA, factors in to why I think LSD is scary. The other issue I have is that when people say that LSD can harm people with a predisposition to schizophrenia or whatever, it's frightening because it seems like a stereotyped thinking pattern that's useful for denying unacceptable causal hypotheses that might in fact be real.
- samus 6y ago
  People playing around with radioactive stuff, even if they are well-intentioned, can easily mess up and contaminate themselves and others with it. Radioactivity is not detectable to any of our senses, only radiation poisoning is. Things are completely different with LSD and other drugs. You could argue that making meth is a dangerous activity in itself, but a properly regulated industry could evaporate any real need to home-brew large amounts.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  There is no LSD radiation though. It can't beam itself into your mouth. Bystanders are never inadvertently drugged.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    >Bystanders are never inadvertently drugged I don't have a counterexample, as the allegations I was reading on Wikipedia are generally of intentionally drugging people,[1][2] but I wouldn't be particularly confident in your statement; how would one know it hasn't happened? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Pont-Saint-Esprit_mass_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Pont-Saint-Esprit_mass_po... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#LSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#LSD
    - filoeleven 6y ago
      Yes. At any gathering of a certain type that’s large enough, like a music festival, you run the risk of eating or drinking something that’s been spiked with something. Most people who do so try to be up front about the “bonus content,” but because of legality they will often couch it in lingo like “space brownies” and the like. If you don’t know what that means, you could be in for a wild ride without anyone having ill intentions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

filoeleven 6y ago

Counterpoint: PFOA / PFAS long chain polymers even at extremely low levels act as endocrine disruptors. DuPont leaks this stuff at its plants, people living near by have elevated types of specific cancers, and nothing is done. If you can get 20 years for two sheets of LSD, I’d expect life in prison for everyone at the companies who continue to leak this toxic stuff, and full payment of affected people:s medical bills, for starters. It doesn’t happen because LSD can be used recreationally, “drugs are bad,” and PFAS is only used by well-respected businesses. https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/ https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/

nearbuy 6y ago
Presumably they aren't dumping beyond the legal limits. That's how our system works. The EPA or other agencies attempt to determine what's safe, the government makes some regulations, and if you follow those regulations, you don't go to prison. Even if the regulations are bad.
- yareally 6y ago
  > "Presumably they aren't dumping beyond the legal limits. That's how our system works." They have and probably still do though[1]. Lived only a couple hours from the location of the film and my wife grew up in a city on the Ohio River they were dumping chemicals into. Was in the local paper here almost weekly during the late 90s and early 00s. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)
  - nearbuy 6y ago
    That says they were dumping. It doesn't say they were breaking any government regulations. In fact, it sounds like the government was lacking regulations on PFOA.
    - yareally 6y ago
      Sure, only because the chemicals weren't regulated yet by the government (and they fought as hard as they could to keep that from happening). Funny enough, DuPont actually had its own regulations for dumping such chemicals and knowingly violated them (which became the cornerstone for the class action lawsuits against them). That said, there's plenty of cases of illegal dumping out there with chemicals that are regulated. For example: https://apnews.com/9717f8be97db4944a825088dc5eee379/US-prosecutors%3A-Water-company-illegally https://apnews.com/9717f8be97db4944a825088dc5eee379/US-prose...

ngold 6y ago

Is there a reason stealing 20 years is realistic for a victimless crime? Poisoning someone actually has serious criminal consequences.

monadic2 6y ago

Well, we don’t do much to regulate the most common date rape drug, Alcohol, so it’s not clear why we need to do so much to prevent adults from consensually taking it.

gvhst 6y ago

By what mechanism will people who didn't consent come into contact with LSD? As residue accidentally transferred by physical contact? By that logic peanuts and other tree nuts should be illegal because trances of its oils can kill those who are sensitive, unlike LSD which is pharmacologically safe. Additionally, while there are many examples of trace residues of tree nuts triggering anaphylactic shock in those not directly handling the nuts, I haven't heard of a single person accidentally ingesting LSD that wasn't willfully handling the drug (which implies consent to any accidental ingestion in my book).

jdkee 6y ago
https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/05/synth-repairman-lsd/ https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/05/synth-repairman-lsd/
filoeleven 6y ago
A friend of mine was dosed without her knowledge or consent at a festival. She thinks it was from a cup of punch she was given, input to this day can’t be sure of the route of ingestion. She was familiar with LSD and realized what was happening, but was not prepared for it and had a rough time. It’s completely irresponsible to give someone a drug without consent, outside of some forms of medical intervention, regardless of your intentions.