4 ms·

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 consen

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.

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.