4 ms·

The drug has dangers, but they seem small compared to those of alcohol, even if largely orthogonal. It got banned because it wasn't understood in the best case

The drug has dangers, but they seem small compared to those of alcohol, even if largely orthogonal. It got banned because it wasn't understood in the best case, to curb the counterculture movement from the 60s in the worst, but it's always been hard to justify it with medical reasons; it's been just tagged along with cocaine or heroin and made bad by association.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
But if there hasn’t been significant medical research, how do we know there are no long-term dangers?
- pope_meat 6y ago
  Why, the next best thing after significant medical research, anecdotal research! So far so good.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    So far in this topic, it’s been research of the “my friend said” kind. Which is even less reliable than direct anecdotal research.
    - pope_meat 6y ago
      My friend doesn't like to admit to things that might be considered a crime, it's just how it goes in a police state.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Do you not think huge quantities of people do it all the time right now? Because, well, they do. Further there were a lot of experiments with psychedelics in the 60s.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    That’s not how medical research works.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Definitely, however it's also disingenuous to say that we have no idea what the long term consequences of shrooms are just because there hasn't been a formal study recently. There's tons of people doing it regularly - for millennia actually, studies from the before-times and a large incentive by the mainstream anti-drug folks to dramatize any adverse consequences. Should there be studies? Sure. Are we pretty sure it's safe? Yep. Safe enough to legalize? Oh most definitely. Certainly until proven otherwise.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        The way to get people to agree with legalization is to follow rigorous medical study procedures, not handwave about it being obviously fine. For the record I think they should be legalized.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        I tend to believe that unless proven otherwise, substances should be legal. The burden of proof IMO is on the folks who want to restrain behavior. [edit] I don't think that producing a study that shows a lack of harm is going to change anyone's mind. The prohibition is puritanical and ideological, no amount of evidence is going to change that. I think if this was based on a genuine fear, the study would have preceded the prohibition. This feels more like running ourselves in circles to collect evidence, Lucy and the football style. We already know the LD-50 of mushrooms is 17kg of fresh mushroom for an average size human lol.
        ceilingcorner 6y ago
        I agree but I’m talking tactically. Legalization requires convincing people that don’t think the same way, and the best method for doing that is by rigorous medical study. The prohibition is puritanical and ideological, no amount of evidence is going to change that Your insistence that this is the case is itself ideological.
- Uberphallus 6y ago
  Then we have way too many measuring sticks. 1. Medical consensus say it's bad, but it's kept legal: tobacco, alcohol, drinking bleach. 2. There's no medical consensus, but it's forbidden anyway: LSD, mushrooms, DMT... 3. Medical consensus say it's bad, and it's forbidden: cocaine, heroin, meth... 4. Medical consensus say it's good, but we ban it anyway: MDMA in the context of psychotherapy [0]. 5. There's no medical consensus, but we ban some yet not others that have an identical mechanism of action: poppers That's without getting into the fact that the federal schedule system is seemingly impermeable, and cocaine or heroin have accepted medical uses, but somehow weed doesn't, despite all the evidence it does. [0] Linking because maybe not many are aware: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2050324518767442 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20503245187674...

ceilingcorner 6y ago

But if there hasn’t been significant medical research, how do we know there are no long-term dangers?

pope_meat 6y ago
Why, the next best thing after significant medical research, anecdotal research! So far so good.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  So far in this topic, it’s been research of the “my friend said” kind. Which is even less reliable than direct anecdotal research.
  - pope_meat 6y ago
    My friend doesn't like to admit to things that might be considered a crime, it's just how it goes in a police state.
arcticbull 6y ago
Do you not think huge quantities of people do it all the time right now? Because, well, they do. Further there were a lot of experiments with psychedelics in the 60s.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  That’s not how medical research works.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Definitely, however it's also disingenuous to say that we have no idea what the long term consequences of shrooms are just because there hasn't been a formal study recently. There's tons of people doing it regularly - for millennia actually, studies from the before-times and a large incentive by the mainstream anti-drug folks to dramatize any adverse consequences. Should there be studies? Sure. Are we pretty sure it's safe? Yep. Safe enough to legalize? Oh most definitely. Certainly until proven otherwise.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      The way to get people to agree with legalization is to follow rigorous medical study procedures, not handwave about it being obviously fine. For the record I think they should be legalized.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        I tend to believe that unless proven otherwise, substances should be legal. The burden of proof IMO is on the folks who want to restrain behavior. [edit] I don't think that producing a study that shows a lack of harm is going to change anyone's mind. The prohibition is puritanical and ideological, no amount of evidence is going to change that. I think if this was based on a genuine fear, the study would have preceded the prohibition. This feels more like running ourselves in circles to collect evidence, Lucy and the football style. We already know the LD-50 of mushrooms is 17kg of fresh mushroom for an average size human lol.
        ceilingcorner 6y ago
        I agree but I’m talking tactically. Legalization requires convincing people that don’t think the same way, and the best method for doing that is by rigorous medical study. The prohibition is puritanical and ideological, no amount of evidence is going to change that Your insistence that this is the case is itself ideological.
Uberphallus 6y ago
Then we have way too many measuring sticks. 1. Medical consensus say it's bad, but it's kept legal: tobacco, alcohol, drinking bleach. 2. There's no medical consensus, but it's forbidden anyway: LSD, mushrooms, DMT... 3. Medical consensus say it's bad, and it's forbidden: cocaine, heroin, meth... 4. Medical consensus say it's good, but we ban it anyway: MDMA in the context of psychotherapy [0]. 5. There's no medical consensus, but we ban some yet not others that have an identical mechanism of action: poppers That's without getting into the fact that the federal schedule system is seemingly impermeable, and cocaine or heroin have accepted medical uses, but somehow weed doesn't, despite all the evidence it does. [0] Linking because maybe not many are aware: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2050324518767442 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20503245187674...